Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state, USA
zip code exempt (formerly DMM 122.32)
Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ) Case No. GJ-95-1-6 (JMR)
SERVED ON )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY ) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION,
) STATUS REPORT ON FOIA REQUESTS
) NOW PENDING, AND NOTICE OF
) CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY
) OF STATUTE:
) 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(A),(B):
) FOIA exemption for Judiciary
_______________________________)
COMES NOW Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris, Sovereign Arizona
Citizen (hereinafter "Counsel") and Vice President for Legal
Affairs of New Life Health Center Company, an Unincorporated
Business Trust domiciled in the Arizona Republic (hereinafter the
"Company") to petition this honorable Court for clarification of
its Order, dated May 21, 1996, that:
(1) the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") Request to
"JOHN M. ROLL," dated May 12, 1996, be filed in the
instant case; and
(2) this is not the proper forum to bring a request under
the Freedom of Information Act.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 1 of 59
The two parts of this Order appear to be inconsistent with
each other. If this, indeed, is not the proper forum to bring a
request under the FOIA, then the FOIA request to "JOHN M. ROLL,"
dated May 12, 1996, should not be filed in the instant case.
Furthermore, Counsel seeks clarification of the apparent
conflict between this Court's Order, and the explicit judicial
remedies which are made available by the FOIA. Specifically, the
Citizen's Guide on Using FOIA/PA, which is an EXHIBIT attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully
herein, contains the following statements about judicial appeals:
I. Filing a Judicial Appeal
When an administrative appeal is denied, a requester
has the right to appeal the denial in court. An FOIA
appeal can be filed in the United States District Court in
the district where the requester lives. The requester can
also file suit in the district where the documents are
located or in the District of Columbia. When a requester
goes to court, the burden of justifying the withholding of
documents is on the government. This is a distinct
advantage for the requester.
Requesters are sometimes successful when they go to
court, but the results vary considerably. Some requesters
who file judicial appeals find that an agency will
disclose some documents previously withheld rather than
fight about disclosure in court. This does not always
happen, but there is no guarantee that the filing of a
judicial appeal will result in any additional disclosure.
Most requesters require the assistance of an attorney
to file a judicial appeal. A person who files a lawsuit
and substantially prevails may be awarded reasonable
attorney fees and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Some requesters may be able to handle their own appeal
without an attorney. Since this is not a litigation
guide, details of the judicial appeal process have been
not included. Anyone considering filing an appeal can
begin by reading the provisions of the FOIA on judicial
review.[21]
[emphasis added]
It is very sad that this Citizen's Guide is no longer being
published by the Government Printing Office ("GPO").
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 2 of 59
Congress has given original jurisdiction to the district
courts to hear FOIA cases in which administrative remedies have
been exhausted. Counsel would agree that this Court is not the
proper forum to litigate the FOIA request to "JOHN M. ROLL" dated
May 12, 1996, because this Court cannot prosecute itself, which
would create an obvious conflict of interest.
However, there are several other FOIA requests pending in
the instant case, and none of these other requests implicates the
Court, either directly or indirectly. For this reason, Counsel
respectfully requests this Court to clarify whether or not it was
the Court's intention to bar all litigation of these other FOIA
requests from this forum. If it did, Counsel hereby objects
specifically because Congress has granted original jurisdiction
to this Court for this very thing.
STATUS REPORT
The following is a status report of all pending FOIA
requests which have been made of people connected with the
instant case:
FOIA Documents Appeal Appeal
FOIA Recipient Date Requested Date Status
Robert L. Miskell 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 pending
Robert L. Miskell 5/12/96 application 5/24/96 pending
Janet Napolitano 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 pending
Janet Napolitano 5/12/96 Supp. Rules 5/24/96 pending
Richard H. Weare 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 pending
Eva Cardenas 5/12/96 credentils 5/24/96 pending
John M. Roll 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 pending
Postmaster 5/12/96 Form 3801 5/24/96 received
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 3 of 59
In all cases, the appeal deadlines run at the end of twenty
(20) working days after the original appeal dates, not including
weekends and national holidays. Thus, all deadlines for
exhaustion of the administrative appeals will fall on June 24,
1996 (allowing an extra day for Memorial Day, a national holiday
which intervened).
In a previous pleading now on file, copies of the original
FOIA requests were included as exhibits: EXHIBIT C: Freedom of
Information Act Request to United States Postmaster, and EXHIBIT
D: Freedom of Information Act Requests to Various Federal
Offices. For the convenience of the Court, copies of all
administrative appeals dated May 24, 1996, are attached.
Counsel agrees that this is not the proper forum to litigate
the FOIA request to "JOHN M. ROLL" dated 5/12/96. However,
Counsel argues that this is the proper forum to litigate all
other pending FOIA requests summarized in the Status Report shown
above. The responses to these latter FOIA requests will be
important to establish, as a matter of fact, whether or not the
people involved in the instant case have proper credentials to be
exercising the authorities they claim to have. Such credentials
also raise important issues of law over which this Court has
preeminent jurisdiction.
This Court will please take judicial notice of the law by
which the courts and Congress are expressly excluded from
coverage under the Freedom of Information Act. See 5 USC Sec.
551(1)(A) and (B). However, the recently discovered evidence
substantiating the ratification of the original Thirteenth
Amendment, penalizing the exercise of Titles of Nobility, has
changed the situation enormously.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 4 of 59
For example, although Mr. Richard H. Weare is the Clerk of
the United States District Court and would normally be exempt
from the disclosure requirements of the FOIA, Counsel argues that
the judiciary's exemption is now unconstitutional specifically
because of this Thirteenth Amendment. The FOIA appeal letter to
Mr. Weare clarified this point as follows:
The documents that were withheld must be disclosed
under the FOIA because the original Thirteenth Amendment
prevents government officials from exercising privileges of
a nobility class, such as being exempt from the principles
of open government and freedom of information. The FOIA
exemption for the judiciary is an unconstitutional violation
of the original Thirteenth Amendment, evidence of which has
been filed with the Grand Jury Foreperson and with the Clerk
of the U.S. District Court in Tucson.
Disclosure of the documents which I requested is in the
public interest because the information, and the procedure
for obtaining the information, are likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations and
activities of government and are not primarily in My
commercial interest.
Moreover, the information requested will help to
improve public confidence in the integrity and independence
of the Judicial Branch of the federal government, or to
confirm that there are people attempting to exercise
judicial branch powers in America without any authority
whatsoever.
[FOIA appeal letter, May 24, 1996]
[emphasis added]
REMEDY SOUGHT
On behalf of the Company, Counsel hereby requests this
honorable Court to clarify its Order dated May 21, 1996, by
specifying which pending FOIA requests, in its opinion, are
proper to be litigated in this forum. Counsel also requests this
honorable Court to take formal judicial notice of all FOIA
requests and appeals currently outstanding, and their respective
deadlines for exhaustion of further administrative remedy.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 5 of 59
Respectfully submitted on June 6, 1996
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 6 of 59
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Linda H. Burns, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury,
under the laws of the United States of America, without the
United States, that I am at least 18 years of age and a Citizen
of one of the United States of America, that I am not currently a
Party to this action, and that I personally served the following
document:
PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION,
STATUS REPORT ON FOIA REQUESTS NOW PENDING,
AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE
by placing said document with exhibits in first class U.S. Mail,
with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following
individuals:
ROBERT L. MISKELL John M. Roll
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona
JANET NAPOLITANO Clerk
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona
Grand Jury Foreperson Postmaster
In re: New Life Health Center Co. U.S. Post Office
55 E. Broadway Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona
Judge Alex Kozinski Evangelina Cardenas
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 300 West Congress
Pasadena, California Tucson, Arizona
Attorney General Solicitor General
Department of Justice Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W. ! 10th and Constitution, N.W. !
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Dated: June 6, 1996
/s/ Linda Burns
________________________________________
Linda H. Burns, Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 7 of 59
A CITIZEN'S GUIDE ON USING
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
AND THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
TO REQUEST GOVERNMENT RECORDS
First Report by
The House Committee on Government Operations
Subcommittee on Information, Justice,
Transportation, and Agriculture
1993 Edition
House Report 103-104
103rd Congress, 1st Session
Union Calendar No. 53
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 8 of 59
CONTENTS
I. PREFACE
II. INTRODUCTION
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
IV. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
V. WHICH ACT TO USE
VI. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
A. The Scope Of The Freedom of Information Act
B. What Records Can Be Requested Under The FOIA?
C. Making an FOIA Request
D. Fees and Fee Waivers
E. Requirements for Agency Responses
F. Reasons Access May Be Denied Under the FOIA
1. Exemption 1: Classified Documents
2. Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules and
Practices
3. Exemption 3: Information Exempt Under Other
Laws
4. Exemption 4: Confidential Business Information
5. Exemption 5: Internal Government
Communications
6. Exemption 6: Personal Privacy
7. Exemption 7: Law Enforcement
8. Exemption 8: Financial Institutions
9. Exemption 9: Geological Information
G. FOIA Exclusions
H. Administrative Appeal Procedures
I. Filing a Judicial Appeal
VII. THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
A. The Scope of the Privacy Act of 1974
B. The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act
C. Locating Records
D. Making a Privacy Act Request for Access
E. Fees
F. Requirements for Agency Responses
G. Reasons Access May Be Denied Under the Privacy Act
1. General Exemptions
2. Specific Exemptions
3. Medical Records
4. Litigation Records
H. Administrative Appeal Procedures For Denial of
Access
I. Amending Records Under the Privacy Act
J. Appeals and Requirements For Agency Responses
K. Filing a Judicial Appeal
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 9 of 59
APPENDIX 1:
SAMPLE REQUEST AND APPEAL LETTERS
A. Freedom of Information Act Request Letter
B. Freedom of Information Act Appeal Letter
C. Privacy Act Request for Access Letter
D. Privacy Act Denial of Access Appeal
E. Privacy Act Request to Amend Records
F. Privacy Act Appeal of Refusal to Amend Records
APPENDIX 2:
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS ON
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
APPENDIX 3:
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS ON
THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
APPENDIX 4:
TEXT OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
APPENDIX 5:
TEXT OF THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
Numbers in brackets [] are footnote references.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 10 of 59
I. PREFACE
In 1977, the House Committee on Government Operations issued
the first Citizen's Guide on how to request records from federal
agencies.[1] The original Guide was reprinted many times and
widely distributed. The Superintendent of Documents at the
Government Printing Office reported that almost 50,000 copies
were sold between 1977 and 1986 when the guide went out of print.
In addition, thousands of copies were distributed by the House
Committee on Government Operations, Members of Congress, the
Congressional Research Service, and other federal agencies. The
original Citizen's Guide is one of the most widely read
congressional committee reports in history.
In 1987, the Committee issued a revised Citizen's Guide.[2]
The new edition was prepared to reflect changes to the Freedom of
Information Act made during 1986. As a result of special efforts
by the Superintendent of Documents at the Government Printing
Office, the availability of the new Guide was well publicized.
The 1987 edition appeared on GPO's "Best Seller" list in the
months following its issuance.
During the 100th Congress, major amendments were made to the
Privacy Act of 1974. The Computer Matching and Privacy
Protection Act of 1988[3] added new provisions to the Privacy Act
and changed several existing requirements. None of the changes
affects a citizen's rights to request or see records held by
federal agencies. However, some of the information in the 1987
Guide became outdated as a result, and a third edition was issued
in 1989.[4]
During the 101st Congress, the Privacy Act of 1974 was
amended through further adjustments to the Computer Matching and
Privacy Protection Act of 1988. The changes do not affect access
rights. This fourth edition of the Citizen's Guide reflected all
changes to the FOIA and Privacy Act made through the end of
1990.[5] The current edition version is the fifth edition and
includes an expanded bibliography and editorial changes.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 11 of 59
II. INTRODUCTION
"A popular Government without popular information or
the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce
or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever
govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own
Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge
gives."
James Madison[6]
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes a
presumption that records in the possession of agencies and
departments of the Executive Branch of the United States
government are accessible to the people. This was not always the
approach to federal information disclosure policy. Before
enactment of the FOIA in 1966, the burden was on the individual
to establish a right to examine these government records. There
were no statutory guidelines or procedures to help a person
seeking information. There were no judicial remedies for those
denied access.
With the passage of the FOIA, the burden of proof shifted
from the individual to the government. Those seeking information
are no longer required to show a need for information. Instead,
the "need to know" standard has been replaced by a "right to
know" doctrine. The government now has to justify the need for
secrecy.
The FOIA sets standards for determining which records must
be disclosed and which records can be withheld. The law also
provides administrative and judicial remedies for those denied
access to records. Above all, the statute requires federal
agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure of
information to the public.
The Privacy Act of 1974 is a companion to the FOIA. The
Privacy Act regulates federal government agency record keeping
and disclosure practices. The Act allows most individuals to
seek access to federal agency records about themselves. The Act
requires that personal information in agency files be accurate,
complete, relevant, and timely. The subject of a record may
challenge the accuracy of information. The Act requires that
agencies obtain information directly from the subject of the
record and that information gathered for one purpose not be used
for another purpose. As with the FOIA, the Privacy Act provides
civil remedies for individuals whose rights have been violated.
Another important feature of the Privacy Act is the
requirement that each federal agency publish a description of
each system of records maintained by the agency that contains
personal information. This prevents agencies from keeping secret
records.
The Privacy Act also restricts the disclosure of personally
identifiable information by federal agencies. Together with the
FOIA, the Privacy Act permits disclosure of most personal files
to the individual who is the subject of the files. The two laws
restrict disclosure of personal information to others when
disclosure would violate privacy interests.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 12 of 59
While both the FOIA and the Privacy Act support the
disclosure of agency records, both laws also recognize the
legitimate need to restrict disclosure of some information. For
example, agencies may withhold information properly classified in
the interest of national defense or foreign policy, trade
secrets, and criminal investigatory files. Other specifically
defined categories of confidential information may also be
withheld.
The essential feature of both laws is that they make federal
agencies accountable for information disclosure policies and
practices. While neither law grants an absolute right to examine
government documents, both laws establish the right to request
records and to receive a response to the request. If a record
cannot be released, the requester is entitled to be told the
reason for the denial. The requester also has a right to appeal
the denial and, if necessary, to challenge it in court.
These procedural rights granted by the FOIA and the Privacy
Act make the laws valuable and workable. As a result, the
disclosure of federal government information cannot be controlled
by arbitrary or unreviewable actions.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends that this Citizen's Guide be made
widely available at low cost to anyone who has an interest in
obtaining documents from the federal government. The Government
Printing Office and federal agencies subject to the Freedom of
Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 should distribute
this report widely.
The Committee also recommends that this Citizen's Guide be
used by federal agencies in training programs for government
employees who are responsible for administering the Freedom of
Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. The Guide should
also be used by those government employees who only occasionally
work with these two laws.
IV. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
This report explains how to use the Freedom of Information
Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. It reflects all changes to the
laws made since 1977. Major amendments to the Freedom of
Information Act passed in 1974 and 1986. A major addition to
the Privacy Act of 1974 was enacted in 1988. Minor amendments to
the Privacy Act were made in 1989 and 1990.
This Guide is intended to serve as a general introduction to
the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.[7] It offers
neither a comprehensive explanation of the details of these Acts
nor an analysis of case law. The Guide will enable those who are
unfamiliar with the laws to understand the process and to make a
request. In addition, the complete text of each law is included
in an appendix.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 13 of 59
Readers should be aware that FOIA litigation is a complex
area of law. There are thousands of court decisions interpreting
the FOIA.[8] These decisions must be considered in order to
develop a complete understanding of the principles governing
disclosure of government information. Anyone requiring more
details about the FOIA, its history, or the case law should
consult other sources. There has been less controversy and less
litigation over the Privacy Act, but there is nevertheless a
considerable body of case law for the Privacy Act as well. There
are other sources of information on the Privacy Act as well.
However, no one should be discouraged from making a request
under either law. No special expertise is required. Using the
Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act is as simple as
writing a letter. This Citizen's Guide explains the essentials.
V. WHICH ACT TO USE
The access provisions of the FOIA and the Privacy Act
overlap in part. The two laws have different procedures and
different exemptions. As a result, sometimes information exempt
under one law will be disclosable under the other.
In order to take maximum advantage of the laws, an
individual seeking information about himself or herself should
normally cite both laws. Requests by an individual for
information that does not relate solely to himself or herself
should be made only under the FOIA.
Congress intended that the two laws be considered together
in the processing of requests for information. Many government
agencies will automatically handle requests from individuals in a
way that will maximize the amount of information that is
disclosable. However, a requester should still make a request in
a manner that is most advantageous and that fully protects all
available legal rights. A requester who has any doubts about
which law to use should always cite both the FOIA and the Privacy
Act when seeking documents from the federal government.
VI. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
A. The Scope Of The Freedom of Information Act
The federal Freedom of Information Act applies to documents
held by agencies in the executive branch of the federal
government. The executive branch includes cabinet departments,
military departments, government corporations, government
controlled corporations, independent regulatory agencies, and
other establishments in the executive branch.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 14 of 59
The FOIA does not apply to elected officials of the federal
government, including the President[9], Vice President, Senators,
and Congressmen.[10] The FOIA does not apply to the federal
judiciary. The FOIA does not apply to private companies; persons
who receive federal contracts or grants; tax-exempt
organizations; or state or local governments.
All States and some localities have passed laws like the
FOIA that allow people to request access to records. In
addition, there are other federal and state laws that may permit
access to documents held by organizations not covered by the
federal FOIA.[11]
B. What Records Can Be Requested Under The FOIA?
The FOIA requires agencies to publish or make available for
public inspection several types of information. This includes:
(1) descriptions of agency organization and office addresses; (2)
statements of the general course and method of agency operation;
(3) rules of procedure and descriptions of forms; (4) substantive
rules of general applicability and general policy statements; (5)
final opinions made in the adjudication of cases; and (6)
administrative staff manuals that affect the public. This
information must either be published in the Federal Register or
made available for inspection and copying without the formality
of an FOIA request.
All other "records" of a federal agency may be requested
under the FOIA. However, the FOIA does not define "record". Any
item containing information that is in the possession, custody,
or control of an agency is usually considered to be an agency
record under the FOIA. Personal notes of agency employees may
not be agency records. A document that is not an "record" will
not be available under the FOIA.
The form in which a record is maintained by an agency does
not affect its availability. A request may seek a printed or
typed document, tape recording, map, photograph, computer
printout, computer tape or disk, or a similar item.
Of course, not all records that can be requested must be
disclosed. Information that is exempt from disclosure is
described below in the section entitled "Reasons Access May Be
Denied Under the FOIA".
The FOIA carefully provides that a requester may ask for
records rather than information. This means that an agency is
only required to look for an existing record or document in
response to an FOIA request. An agency is not obliged to create
a new record to comply with a request. An agency is not required
to collect information it does not have. Nor must an agency do
research or analyze data for a requester.[12]
Requesters must ask for existing records. Requests may have
to be carefully written in order to obtain the desired
information. Sometimes, an agency will help a requester identify
a specific document that contains the information being sought.
Other times, a requester may need to be creative when writing an
FOIA request in order to identify an existing document or set of
documents containing the desired information.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 15 of 59
There is a second general limitation on FOIA requests. The
law requires that each request must reasonably describe the
records being sought. This means that a request must be specific
enough to permit a professional employee of the agency who is
familiar with the subject matter to locate the record in a
reasonable period of time.
Because agencies organize and index records in different
ways, one agency may consider a request to be reasonably
descriptive while another agency may reject a similar request as
too vague. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
a central index for its primary record system. As a result, the
FBI is able to search for records about a specific person.
However, agencies that do not maintain a central name index may
be unable to conduct the same type of search. These agencies may
reject a similar request because the request does not describe
records that can be identified.
Requesters should make requests as specific as possible. If
a particular document is required, it should be identified
precisely, preferably by date and title. However, a request does
not always have to be that specific. A requester who cannot
identify a specific record should clearly explain his or her
needs. A requester should make sure, however, that a request is
broad enough to include all desired information.
For example, assume that a requester wants to obtain a list
of toxic waste sites near his home. A request to the
Environmental Protection Agency for all records on toxic waste
would cover many more records than are needed. The fees for such
a request might be very high, and it is possible that the request
might be rejected as too vague.
A request for all toxic waste sites within three miles of a
particular address is very specific. But it is unlikely that EPA
would have an existing record containing data organized in that
fashion. As a result, the request might be denied because there
is no existing record containing the information.
The requester might do better to ask for a list of toxic
waste sites in his city, county, or state. It is more likely
that existing records might contain this information. The
requester might also want to tell the agency in the request
letter exactly what information is desired. This additional
explanation may help the agency to find a record that meets the
request.
Many people include their telephone number with their
requests. Some questions about the scope of a request can be
resolved quickly when an agency employee and the requester talk.
This is an efficient way to resolve questions that arise during
the processing of FOIA requests.
It is to everyone's advantage if requests are as precise and
as narrow as possible. The requester benefits because the
request can be processed faster and cheaper. The agency benefits
because it can do a better job of responding to the request. The
agency will also be able to use its resources to respond to more
requests. The FOIA works best when both the requester and the
agency act cooperatively.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 16 of 59
C. Making an FOIA Request
The first step in making a request under the FOIA is to
identify the agency that has the records. An FOIA request must
be addressed to a specific agency. There is no central
government records office that services FOIA requests.
Often, a requester knows beforehand which agency has the
desired records. If not, a requester can consult a government
directory such as the United States Government Manual.[13] This
manual has a complete list of all federal agencies, a description
of agency functions, and the address of each agency. A requester
who is uncertain about which agency has the records that are
needed can make FOIA requests at more than one agency.
Agencies normally require that FOIA requests be in writing.
Letters requesting records under the FOIA can be short and
simple. No one needs a lawyer to make an FOIA request. Appendix
1 of this Guide contains a sample request letter.
The request letter should be addressed to the agency's FOIA
Officer or to the head of the agency. The envelope containing
the written request should be marked "Freedom of Information Act
Request" in the bottom left-hand corner.[14]
There are three basic elements to an FOIA request letter.
First, the letter should state that the request is being made
under the Freedom of Information Act. Second, the request should
identify the records that are being sought as specifically as
possible. Third, the name and address of the requester must be
included.
Under the 1986 amendments to the FOIA, fees chargeable vary
with the status or purpose of the requester. As a result, a
requester may have to provide additional information to permit
the agency to determine the appropriate fees. Different fees can
be charged to commercial users, representatives of the news
media, educational or noncommercial scientific institutions, and
individuals. The next section explains the fee structure in more
detail.
There are several optional items that are often included in
an FOIA request. The first is the telephone number of the
requester. This permits an agency employee processing a request
to speak with the requester if necessary.
A second optional item is a limitation on the fees that the
requester is willing to pay. It is common for a requester to ask
to be notified in advance if the charges will exceed a fixed
amount. This allows the requester to modify or withdraw a
request if the cost may be too high. Also, by stating a
willingness to pay a set amount of fees in the original request
letter, a requester may avoid the necessity of additional
correspondence and delay.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 17 of 59
A third optional item sometimes included in an FOIA request
is a request for a waiver or reduction of fees. The 1986
amendments to the FOIA changed the rules for fee waivers. Fees
must be waived or reduced if disclosure of the information is in
the public interest because it is likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or
activities of the government and is not primarily in the
commercial interest of the requester. Decisions about granting
fee waivers are separate from and different than decisions about
the amount of fees that can be charged to a requester.
A requester should keep a copy of the request letter and
related correspondence until the request has been finally
resolved.
D. Fees and Fee Waivers
FOIA requesters may have to pay fees covering some or all of
the costs of processing their requests. As amended in 1986, the
law establishes three types of fees that may be charged. The
1986 law makes the process of determining the applicable fees
more complicated. However, the 1986 rules reduce or eliminate
entirely the cost for small, non-commercial requests.
First, fees can be imposed to recover the cost of copying
documents. All agencies have a fixed price for making copies
using copying machines. A requester is usually charged the
actual cost of copying computer tapes, photographs, and other
nonstandard documents.
Second, fees can also be imposed to recover the costs of
searching for documents. This includes the time spent looking
for material responsive to a request. A requester can minimize
search charges by making clear, narrow requests for identifiable
documents whenever possible.
Third, fees can be charged to recover review costs. Review
is the process of examining documents to determine whether any
portion is exempt from disclosure. Before the 1986 amendments
took effect, no review costs were charged to any requester.
Effective on April 25, 1987, review costs may be charged to
commercial requesters only. Review charges only include costs
incurred during the initial examination of a document. An agency
may not charge for any costs incurred in resolving issues of law
or policy that may arise while processing a request.
Different fees apply to different requesters. There are
three categories of FOIA requesters. The first includes
representatives of the news media, and educational or
noncommercial scientific institutions whose purpose is scholarly
or scientific research. A requester in this category who is not
seeking records for commercial use can only be billed for
reasonable standard document duplication charges. A request for
information from a representative of the news media is not
considered to be for commercial use if the request is in support
of a news gathering or dissemination function.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 18 of 59
The second category includes FOIA requesters seeking records
for commercial use. Commercial use is not defined in the law,
but it generally includes profit making activities. A commercial
user can be charged reasonable standard charges for document
duplication, search, and review.
The third category of FOIA requesters includes everyone not
in the first two categories. People seeking information for
personal use, public interest groups, and non-profit
organizations are examples of requesters who fall into the third
group. Charges for these requesters are limited to reasonable
standard charges for document duplication and search. Review
costs may not be charged. The 1986 amendments did not change the
fees charged to these requesters.
Small requests are free for a requester in the first and
third categories. This includes all requesters except commercial
users. There is no charge for the first two hours of search time
and for the first 100 pages of documents. A non-commercial
requester who limits a request to a small number of easily found
records will not pay any fees at all.
In addition, the law also prevents agencies from charging
fees if the cost of collecting the fee would exceed the amount
collected. This limitation applies to all requests, including
those seeking documents for commercial use. Thus, if the
allowable charges for any FOIA request are small, no fees are
imposed.
Each agency sets charges for duplication, search, and review
based on its own costs. The amount of these charges is listed in
agency FOIA regulations. Each agency also sets its own threshold
for minimum charges.
The 1986 FOIA amendments also changed the law on fee
waivers. Fees now must be waived or reduced if disclosure of the
information is in the public interest because it is likely to
contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the government and is not primarily
in the commercial interest of the requester.
The 1986 amendments on fees and fee waivers have created
some confusion. Determinations about fees are separate and
distinct from determinations about fee waivers. For example, a
requester who can demonstrate that he or she is a news reporter
may only be charged duplication fees. But a requester found to
be a reporter is not automatically entitled to a waiver of those
fees. A reporter who seeks a waiver must demonstrate that the
request also meets the standards for waivers.
Normally, only after a requester has been categorized to
determine the applicable fees does the issue of a fee waiver
arise. A requester who seeks a fee waiver should ask for a
waiver in the original request letter. However, a request for a
waiver can be made at a later time. The requester should
describe how disclosure will contribute to public understanding
of the operations or activities of the government. The sample
request letter in the appendix includes optional language asking
for a fee waiver.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 19 of 59
Any requester may ask for a fee waiver. Some will find it
easier to qualify than others. A news reporter who is only
charged duplication costs may still ask that the charges be
waived because of the public benefits that will result from
disclosure. A representative of the news media, a scholar, or a
public interest group are more likely to qualify for a waiver of
fees. A commercial user may find it difficult to qualify for
waivers.
The eligibility of other requesters will vary. A key
element in qualifying for a fee waiver is the relationship of the
information to public understanding of the operations or
activities of government. Another important factor is the
ability of the requester to convey that information to other
interested members of the public. A requester is not eligible
for a fee waiver solely because of indigence.
E. Requirements for Agency Responses
Each agency is required to determine within ten days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the
receipt of a request whether to comply with the request. The
actual disclosure of documents is required to follow promptly
thereafter. If a request is denied in whole or in part, the
agency must tell the requester the reasons for the denial. The
agency must also tell the requester that there is a right to
appeal any adverse determination to the head of the agency.
The FOIA permits an agency to extend the time limits up to
ten days in unusual circumstances. These circumstances include
the need to collect records from remote locations, review large
numbers of records, and consult with other agencies. The agency
is supposed to notify the requester whenever an extension is
invoked.[15]
The statutory time limits for responses are not always met.
An agency sometimes receives an unexpectedly large number of FOIA
requests at one time and is unable to meet the deadlines. Some
agencies assign inadequate resources to FOIA offices. The
Congress does not condone the failure of any agency to meet the
law's time limits. However, as a practical matter, there is
little that a requester can do about it. The courts have been
reluctant to provide relief solely because the FOIA's time limits
have not been met.
The best advice to requesters is to be patient. The law
allows a requester to consider that his or her request has been
denied if it has not been decided within the time limits. This
permits the requester to file an administrative appeal or file a
lawsuit in federal district court. However, this is not always
the best course of action. The filing of an administrative or
judicial appeal will not necessarily result in any faster
processing of the request.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 20 of 59
Each agency generally processes requests in the order of
receipt. Some agencies will expedite the processing of urgent
requests. Anyone with a pressing need for records should consult
with the agency FOIA officer about how to ask for expedited
treatment of requests.
F. Reasons Access May Be Denied Under the FOIA
An agency may refuse to disclose an agency record that falls
within any of the FOIA's nine statutory exemptions. The
exemptions protect against the disclosure of information that
would harm national defense or foreign policy, privacy of
individuals, proprietary interests of business, functioning of
the government, and other important interests. A document that
does not qualify as an "agency record" may be denied because only
agency records are available under the FOIA. Personal notes of
agency employees may be denied on this basis. However, most
records in the possession of an agency are "agency records"
within the meaning of the FOIA.
An agency may withhold exempt information, but it is not
always required to do so. For example, an agency may disclose an
exempt internal memorandum because no harm would result from its
disclosure. However, an agency is not likely to agree to
disclose an exempt document that is classified or that contains a
trade secret.
When a record contains some information that qualifies as
exempt, the entire record is not necessarily exempt. Instead,
the FOIA specifically provides that any reasonably segregable
portions of a record must be provided to a requester after the
deletion of the portions that are exempt. This is a very
important requirement because it prevents an agency from
withholding an entire document simply because one line or one
page is exempt.
1. Exemption 1: Classified Documents
The first FOIA exemption permits the withholding of properly
classified documents. Information may be classified in the
interest of national defense or foreign policy.
The rules for classification are established by the
President and not the FOIA or other law. The FOIA provides that,
if a document has been properly classified under a presidential
Executive Order, the document can be withheld from disclosure.
Classified documents may be requested under the FOIA. An
agency can review the document to determine if it still requires
protection. In addition, the Executive Order on Security
Classification establishes a special procedure for requesting the
declassification of documents.[16] If a requested document is
declassified, it can be released in response to an FOIA request.
However, a document that is declassified may be still be exempt
under other FOIA exemptions.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 21 of 59
2. Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
The second FOIA exemption covers matters that are related
solely to an agency's internal personnel rules and practices. As
interpreted by the courts, there are two separate classes of
documents that are generally held to fall within exemption two.
First, information relating to personnel rules or internal
agency practices is exempt if it is trivial administrative matter
of no genuine public interest. A rule governing lunch hours for
agency employees is an example.
Second, an internal administrative manual can be exempt if
disclosure would risk circumvention of law or agency regulations.
In order to fall into this category, the material will normally
have to regulate internal agency conduct rather than public
behavior.
3. Exemption 3: Information Exempt Under Other Laws
The third exemption incorporates into the FOIA other laws
that restrict the availability of information. To qualify under
this exemption, a statute must require that matters be withheld
from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion to the
agency. Alternatively, the statute must establish particular
criteria for withholding or refer to particular types of matters
to be withheld.
One example of a qualifying statute is the provision of the
Tax Code prohibiting the public disclosure of tax returns and tax
return information.[17] Another qualifying Exemption 3 statute
is the law designating identifiable census data as
confidential.[18] Whether a particular statute qualifies under
Exemption 3 can be a difficult legal question.
4. Exemption 4: Confidential Business Information
The fourth exemption protects from public disclosure two
types of information: trade secrets and confidential business
information. A trade secret is a commercially valuable plan,
formula, process, or device. This is a narrow category of
information. An example of a trade secret is the recipe for a
commercial food product.
The second type of protected data is commercial or financial
information obtained from a person and privileged or
confidential. The courts have held that data qualifies for
withholding if disclosure by the government would be likely to
harm the competitive position of the person who submitted the
information. Detailed information on a company's marketing
plans, profits, or costs can qualify as confidential business
information. Information may also be withheld if disclosure
would be likely to impair the government's ability to obtain
similar information in the future.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 22 of 59
Only information obtained from a person other than a
government agency qualifies under the fourth exemption. A person
is an individual, a partnership, or a corporation. Information
that an agency created on its own cannot normally be withheld
under exemption four.
Although there is no formal requirement under the FOIA, many
agencies will notify a submitter of business information that
disclosure of the information is being considered.[19] The
submitter then has an opportunity to convince the agency that the
information qualifies for withholding. A submitter can also file
suit to block disclosure under the FOIA. Such lawsuits are
generally referred to as "reverse" FOIA lawsuits because the FOIA
is being used in an attempt to prevent rather than to require the
disclosure of information. A reverse FOIA lawsuit may be filed
when the submitter of documents and the government disagree
whether the information is confidential.
5. Exemption 5: Internal Government Communications
The FOIA's fifth exemption applies to internal government
documents. An example is a letter from one government department
to another about a joint decision that has not yet been made.
Another example is a memorandum from an agency employee to his
supervisor describing options for conducting the agency's
business.
The purpose of the fifth exemption is to safeguard the
deliberative policy making process of government. The exemption
encourages frank discussion of policy matters between agency
officials by allowing supporting documents to be withheld from
public disclosure. The exemption also protects against premature
disclosure of policies before final adoption.
While the policy behind the fifth exemption is wellaccepted,
the application of the exemption is complicated. The fifth
exemption may be the most difficult FOIA exemption to understand
and apply. For example, the exemption protects the policy making
process, but it does not protect purely factual information
related to the policy process. Factual information must be
disclosed unless it is inextricably intertwined with protected
information about an agency decision.
Protection for the decision making process is appropriate
only for the period while decisions are being made. Thus, the
fifth exemption has been held to distinguish between documents
that are pre-decisional and therefore may be protected, and those
which are post-decisional and therefore not subject to
protection. Once a policy is adopted, the public has a greater
interest in knowing the basis for the decision.
The exemption also incorporates some of the privileges that
apply in litigation involving the government. For example,
papers prepared by the government's lawyers can be withheld in
the same way that papers prepared by private lawyers for clients
are not available through discovery in civil litigation.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 23 of 59
6. Exemption 6: Personal Privacy
The sixth exemption covers personnel, medical, and similar
files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This exemption
protects the privacy interests of individuals by allowing an
agency to withhold intimate personal data kept in government
files. Only individuals have privacy interests. Corporations
and other legal persons have no privacy rights under the sixth
exemption.
The exemption requires agencies to strike a balance between
an individual's privacy interest and the public's right to know.
However, since only a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy is
a basis for withholding, there is a perceptible tilt in favor of
disclosure in the exemption. Nevertheless, the sixth exemption
makes it harder to obtain information about another individual
without the consent of that individual.
The Privacy Act of 1974 also regulates the disclosure of
personal information about an individual. The FOIA and the
Privacy Act overlap in part, but there is no inconsistency. An
individual seeking records about himself or herself should cite
both laws when making a request. This ensures that the maximum
amount of disclosable information will be released. Records that
can be denied to an individual under the Privacy Act are not
necessarily exempt under the FOIA.
7. Exemption 7: Law Enforcement
The seventh exemption allows agencies to withhold law
enforcement records in order to protect the law enforcement
process from interference. The exemption was amended slightly in
1986, but it still retains six specific subexemptions.
Exemption (7)(A) allows the withholding of a law enforcement
record that could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings. This exemption protects an active law
enforcement investigation from interference through premature
disclosure.
Exemption (7)(B) allows the withholding of information that
would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial
adjudication. This exemption is rarely used.
Exemption (7)(C) recognizes that individuals have a privacy
interest in information maintained in law enforcement files. If
the disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the
information is exempt from disclosure. The standards for privacy
protection in Exemption 6 and Exemption (7)(C) differ slightly.
Exemption (7)(C) protects against an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy while Exemption 6 protects against clearly a
unwarranted invasion. Also, Exemption (7)(C) allows the
withholding of information that "could reasonably be expected to"
invade someone's privacy. Under Exemption 6, information can be
withheld only if disclosure "would" invade someone's privacy.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 24 of 59
Exemption (7)(D) protects the identity of confidential
sources. Information that could reasonably be expected to reveal
the identity of a confidential source is exempt. A confidential
source can include a state, local, or foreign agency or
authority, or a private institution that furnished information on
a confidential basis. In addition, the exemption protects
information furnished by a confidential source if the data was
compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority during a
criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful
national security intelligence investigation.
Exemption (7)(E) protects from disclosure information that
would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions or that would disclose guidelines
for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if disclosure
of the information could reasonably be expected to risk
circumvention of the law.
Exemption (7)(F) protects law enforcement information that
could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical
safety of any individual.
8. Exemption 8: Financial Institutions
The eighth exemption protects information that is contained
in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports
prepared by or for a bank supervisory agency such as the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, or similar
agencies.
9. Exemption 9: Geological Information
The ninth FOIA exemption covers geological and geophysical
information, data, and maps about wells. This exemption is
rarely used.
G. FOIA Exclusions
The 1986 amendments to the FOIA gave limited authority to
agencies to respond to a request without confirming the existence
of the requested records. Ordinarily, any proper request must
receive an answer stating whether there is any responsive
information, even if the requested information is exempt from
disclosure.
In some narrow circumstances, acknowledgement of the
existence of a record can produce consequences similar to those
resulting from disclosure of the record itself. In order to
avoid this type of problem, the 1986 amendments established three
"record exclusions".
The exclusions allow an agency to treat certain exempt
records as if the records were not subject to the FOIA. An
agency is not required to confirm the existence of three specific
categories of records. If these records are requested, the
agency may respond that there are no disclosable records
responsive to the request. However, these exclusions do not
broaden the authority of any agency to withhold documents from
the public. The exclusions are only applicable to information
that is otherwise exempt from disclosure.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 25 of 59
The first exclusion may be used when a request seeks
information that is exempt because disclosure could reasonably be
expected to interfere with a current law enforcement
investigation (exemption (7)(A)). There are three specific
prerequisites for the application of this exclusion. First, the
investigation in question must involve a possible violation of
criminal law. Second, there must be reason to believe that the
subject of the investigation is not already aware that the
investigation is underway. Third, disclosure of the existence of
the records -- as distinguished from the contents of the records
-- could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings.
When all of these conditions exist, an agency may respond to
an FOIA request for investigatory records as if the records are
not subject to the requirements of the FOIA. In other words, the
agency's response does not have to reveal that it is conducting
an investigation.
The second exclusion applies to informant records maintained
by a criminal law enforcement agency under the informant's name
or personal identifier. The agency is not required to confirm
the existence of these records unless the informant's status has
been officially confirmed. This exclusion helps agencies to
protect the identity of confidential informants. Information
that might identify informants has always been exempt under the
FOIA.
The third exclusion only applies to records maintained by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation which pertain to foreign
intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism.
When the existence of these types of records is classified, the
FBI may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of
FOIA.
This exclusion does not apply to all classified records on
the specific subjects. It only applies when the records are
classified and when the existence of the records is also
classified. Since the underlying records must be classified
before the exclusion is relevant, agencies have no new
substantive withholding authority.
In enacting these exclusions, congressional sponsors stated
that it was their intent that agencies must inform FOIA
requesters that these exclusions are available for agency use.
Requesters who believe that records were improperly withheld
because of the exclusions can seek judicial review.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 26 of 59
H. Administrative Appeal Procedures
Whenever an FOIA request is denied, the agency must inform
the requester of the reasons for the denial and the requester's
right to appeal the denial to the head of the agency. A
requester may appeal the denial of a request for a document or
for a fee waiver. A requester may contest the type or amount of
fees that were charged. A requester may appeal any other type of
adverse determination including a rejection of a request for
failure to describe adequately the documents being requested. A
requester can also appeal because the agency failed to conduct an
adequate search for the documents that were requested.
A person whose request was granted in part and denied in part
may appeal the part that was denied. If an agency has agreed to
disclose some but not all requested documents, the filing of an
appeal does not affect the release of the documents that are
disclosable. There is no risk to the requester in filing an
appeal.
The appeal to the head of the agency is a simple
administrative appeal. A lawyer can be helpful, but no one needs
a lawyer to file an appeal. Anyone who can write a letter can
file an appeal. Appeals to the head of the agency often result
in the disclosure of some records that had been withheld. A
requester who is not convinced that the agency's initial decision
is correct should appeal. There is no charge for filing an
administrative appeal.
An appeal is filed by sending a letter to the head of the
agency. The letter must identify the FOIA request that is being
appealed. The envelope containing the letter of appeal should be
marked in the lower left hand corner with the words "Freedom of
Information Act Appeal."[20]
Many agencies assign a number to all FOIA requests that are
received. The number should be included in the appeal letter,
along with the name and address of the requester. It is a common
practice to include a copy of the agency's initial decision
letter as part of the appeal, but this is not required. It can
also be helpful for the requester to include a telephone number
in the appeal letter.
An appeal will normally include the requester's arguments
supporting disclosure of the documents. A requester may include
any facts or any arguments supporting the case for reversing the
initial decision. However, an appeal letter does not have to
contain any arguments at all. It is sufficient to state that the
agency's initial decision is being appealed. Appendix 1 includes
a sample appeal letter.
The FOIA does not set a time limit for filing an
administrative appeal of an FOIA denial. However, it is good
practice to file an appeal promptly. Some agency regulations
establish a time limit for filing an administrative appeal. A
requester whose appeal is rejected by an agency because it is too
late may refile the original FOIA request and start the process
again.
A requester who delays filing an appeal runs the risk that
the documents could be destroyed. However, as long as an agency
is considering a request or an appeal, the agency must preserve
the documents.
An agency is required to make a decision on an appeal within
twenty days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays).
It is possible for an agency to extend the time limits by an
additional ten days. Once the time period has elapsed, a
requester may consider that the appeal has been denied and may
proceed with a judicial appeal. However, unless there is an
urgent need for records, this may not be the best course of
action. The courts are not sympathetic to appeals based solely
on an agency's failure to comply with the FOIA's time limits.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 27 of 59
I. Filing a Judicial Appeal
When an administrative appeal is denied, a requester has the
right to appeal the denial in court. An FOIA appeal can be filed
in the United States District Court in the district where the
requester lives. The requester can also file suit in the
district where the documents are located or in the District of
Columbia. When a requester goes to court, the burden of
justifying the withholding of documents is on the government.
This is a distinct advantage for the requester.
Requesters are sometimes successful when they go to court,
but the results vary considerably. Some requesters who file
judicial appeals find that an agency will disclose some documents
previously withheld rather than fight about disclosure in court.
This does not always happen, and there is no guarantee that the
filing of a judicial appeal will result in any additional
disclosure.
Most requesters require the assistance of an attorney to
file a judicial appeal. A person who files a lawsuit and
substantially prevails may be awarded reasonable attorney fees
and litigation costs reasonably incurred. Some requesters may be
able to handle their own appeal without an attorney. Since this
is not a litigation guide, details of the judicial appeal process
have been not included. Anyone considering filing an appeal can
begin by reading the provisions of the FOIA on judicial
review.[21]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 28 of 59
VII. THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
A. The Scope of the Privacy Act of 1974
The Privacy Act of 1974 provides safeguards against an
invasion of privacy through the misuse of records by federal
agencies. In general, the Act allows a citizen to learn how
records are collected, maintained, used, and disseminated by the
federal government. The Act also permits an individual to gain
access to most personal information maintained by federal
agencies and to seek amendment of any incorrect or incomplete
information.
The Privacy Act applies to personal information maintained
by agencies in the executive branch of the federal government.
The executive branch includes cabinet departments, military
departments, government corporations, government controlled
corporations, independent regulatory agencies, and other
establishments in the executive branch. Agencies subject to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are also subject to the Privacy
Act. The Privacy Act does not generally apply to records
maintained by state and local governments or private companies or
organizations.[22]
The Privacy Act only grants rights to United States citizens
and to aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. As a
result, a foreign national cannot use the Act's provisions.
However, a foreigner may use the FOIA to request records about
himself or herself.
In general, the only records subject to the Privacy Act are
records that are maintained in a system of records. The idea of
a "system of records" is unique to the Privacy Act and requires
explanation.
The Act defines a "record" to include most personal
information maintained by an agency about an individual. A
record contains individually identifiable information, including
but not limited to information about education, financial
transactions, medical history, criminal history, or employment
history. A "system of records" is a group of records from which
information is actually retrieved by name, social security
number, or other identifying symbol assigned to an individual.
Some personal information is not kept in a system of
records. This information is not subject to the provisions of
the Privacy Act, although access may be requested under the FOIA.
Most personal information in government files is subject to the
Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act also establishes general records management
requirements for federal agencies. In summary, there are five
basic requirements that are most relevant to individuals.
First, each agency must establish procedures allowing
individuals to see and copy records about themselves. An
individual may also seek to amend any information that is not
accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The rights to inspect
and to correct records are the most important provisions of the
Privacy Act. This guide explains in more detail how an
individual can exercise these rights.
Second, each agency must publish notices describing all
systems of records. The notices include a complete description
of personal-data record keeping policies, practices, and systems.
This requirement prevents the maintenance of secret record
systems.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 29 of 59
Third, each agency must make reasonable efforts to maintain
accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records about
individuals. Agencies are prohibited from maintaining
information about how individuals exercise rights guaranteed by
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution unless maintenance
of the information is specifically authorized by statute or
relates to an authorized law enforcement activity.
Fourth, the Act establishes rules governing the use and
disclosure of personal information. The Act specifies that
information collected for one purpose may not be used for another
purpose without notice to or the consent of the subject of the
record. The Act also requires that each agency keep a record of
some disclosures of personal information.
Fifth, the Act provides legal remedies that permit an
individual to seek enforcement of the rights granted under the
Act. In addition, federal employees who fail to comply with the
Act's provisions may be subjected to criminal penalties.
B. The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-503) amended the Privacy Act by adding new
provisions regulating the use of computer matching. Records used
during the conduct of a matching program are subject to an
additional set of requirements.
Computer matching is the computerized comparison of
information about individuals for the purpose of determining
eligibility for federal benefit programs. A matching program can
be subject to the requirements of the Computer Matching Act if
records from a Privacy Act system of records are used during the
program. If federal Privacy Act records are matched against
state or local records, then the state or local matching program
can be subject to the new matching requirements.
In general, matching programs involving federal records must
be conducted under a matching agreement between the source and
recipient agencies. The matching agreement describes the purpose
and procedures of the matching and establishes protections for
matching records. The agreement is subject to review and
approval by a Data Integrity Board. Each federal agency involved
in a matching activity must establish a Data Integrity Board.
For an individual seeking access to or correction of
records, the computer matching legislation provides no special
access rights. If matching records are federal records, then the
access and correction provisions of the Privacy Act apply. There
is no general right of access or correction for matching records
of state and local agencies. It is possible that rights are
available under state or local laws.
There is, however, a requirement that an individual be
notified of agency findings prior to the taking of any adverse
action as a result of a computer matching program. An individual
must also be given an opportunity to contest such findings. The
notice and opportunity-to-contest provisions apply to matching
records whether the matching was done by the federal government
or by a state or local government. Section 7201 of Public Law
101-508 modified the due process notice requirement to permit the
use of statutory or regulatory notice periods.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 30 of 59
The matching provisions also require that any agency --
federal or non-federal -- involved in computer matching must
independently verify information used to take adverse action
against an individual. This requirement was included in order to
protect individuals from arbitrary or unjustified denials of
benefits. Independent verification includes independent
investigation and confirmation of information. Public Law 101508
also modified the independent verification requirement in
circumstances in which it was unnecessary.
Most of the provisions of the Computer Matching and Privacy
Protection Act of 1988 were originally scheduled to become
effective in July 1989. Public Law 101-56 delayed the effective
date for most matching programs until January 1, 1990.
C. Locating Records
There is no central index of federal government records
about individuals. An individual who wants to inspect records
about himself or herself must first identify which agency has the
records. Often, this will not be difficult. For example, an
individual who was employed by the federal government knows that
the employing agency or the Office of Personnel Management
maintains personnel files.
Similarly, an individual who receives veterans' benefits
will normally find relevant records at the Department of Veterans
Affairs or at the Defense Department. Tax records are maintained
by the Internal Revenue Service, social security records by the
Social Security Administration, passport records by the State
Department, etc.
For those who are uncertain about which agency has the records
that are needed, there are several sources of information.
First, an individual can ask an agency that might maintain the
records. If that agency does not have the records, it may be
able to identify the proper agency.
Second, a government directory such as the United States
Government Manual[23] contains a complete list of all federal
agencies, a description of agency functions, and the address of
the agency and its field offices. An agency responsible for
operating a program normally maintains the records related to
that program.
Third, a Federal Information Center can help to identify
government agencies, their functions, and their records. These
Centers, which are operated by the General Services
Administration, serve as clearinghouses for information about the
federal government. There are Federal Information Centers
throughout the country.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 31 of 59
Fourth, every two years, the Office of the Federal Register
publishes a compilation of system of records notices for all
agencies. These notices contain a complete description of each
record system maintained by each agency. The compilation --
which is published in five large volumes -- is the most complete
reference for information about federal agency personal
information practices.[24] The information that appears in the
compilation also appears sometimes in the Federal Register.[25]
The compilation -- formally called Privacy Act Issuances --
may be difficult to find and hard to use. It does not contain a
comprehensive index. Copies will be available in some federal
depository libraries and possibly in other libraries as well.
Although the compilation is the best single source of detailed
information about personal records maintained by federal
agencies, it is not necessary to consult the compilation before
making a Privacy Act request. A requester is not required to
identify the specific system of records that contains the
information being sought. It is sufficient to identify the
agency that has the records. Using information provided by the
requester, the agency will determine which system of records has
the files that have been requested.
Those who request records under the Privacy Act can help the
agency by identifying the type of records being sought. Large
agencies maintain hundreds of different record systems. A
request can be processed faster if the requester tells the agency
that he or she was employed by the agency, was the recipient of
benefits under an agency program, or had other specific contacts
with the agency.
D. Making a Privacy Act Request for Access
The fastest way to make a Privacy Act request is to identify
the specific system of records. The request can be addressed to
the system manager. Few people do this. Instead, most people
address their requests to the head of the agency that has the
records or to the agency's Privacy Act Officer. The envelope
containing the written request should be marked "Privacy Act
Request" in the bottom left-hand corner.[26]
There are three basic elements to a request for records
under the Privacy Act. First, the letter should state that the
request is being made under the Privacy Act. Second, the letter
should include the name, address, and signature of the requester.
Third, the request should describe the records as specifically as
possible. Appendix 1 includes a sample Privacy Act request
letter.
It is a common practice for an individual seeking records
about himself or herself to make the request under both the
Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act. See the
discussion in the front of this guide about which act to use.
A requester can describe the records by identifying a
specific system of records, by describing his or her contacts
with an agency, or by simply asking for all records about himself
or herself. The broader and less specific a request is, the
longer it may take for an agency to respond.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 32 of 59
It is a good practice for a requester to describe the type
of records that he or she expects to find. For example, an
individual seeking a copy of his service record in the Army
should state that he was in the Army and include the approximate
dates of service. This will help the Defense Department narrow
its search to record systems that are likely to contain the
information being sought. An individual seeking records from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation may ask that files in specific
field offices be searched in addition to the FBI's central office
files. The FBI does not routinely search field office records
without a specific request.
An agency will generally require a requester to provide some
proof of identity before records will be disclosed. Agencies may
have different requirements. Some agencies will accept a
signature; others may require a notarized signature. If an
individual goes to the agency to inspect records, standard
personal identification may be acceptable. More stringent
requirements may apply if the records being sought are especially
sensitive.
An agency will inform requesters of any special
identification requirements. Requesters who need records quickly
should first consult agency regulations or talk to the agency's
Privacy Act Officer to find out how to provide adequate
identification.
An individual who visits an agency office to inspect a
Privacy Act record may bring along a friend or relative to review
the record. When a requester brings another person, the agency
may ask the requester to sign a written statement authorizing
discussion of the record in the presence of that person.
It is a crime to knowingly and willfully request or obtain
records under the Privacy Act under false pretenses. A request
for access under the Privacy Act can only be made by the subject
of the record. An individual cannot make a request under the
Privacy Act for a record about another person. The only
exception is for a parent or legal guardian who can request
records for a minor or a person who has been declared
incompetent.
E. Fees
Under the Privacy Act, fees can only be charged for the cost
of copying records. No fees may be charged for the time it takes
to search for records or for the time it takes to review the
records to determine if any exemptions apply. This is a major
difference from the FOIA. Under the FOIA, fees can sometimes be
charged to recover search costs and review costs.[27] The
different fee structure in the two laws is one reason many
requesters seeking records about themselves cite both laws. This
minimizes allowable fees.
Many agencies will not charge fees for making a copy of a
Privacy Act file, especially when the file is small. If paying
the copying charges is a problem, the requester should explain in
the request letter. An agency can waive fees under the Privacy
Act.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 33 of 59
F. Requirements for Agency Responses
Unlike the FOIA, there is no fixed time when an agency must
respond to a request for access to records under the Privacy Act.
It is good practice for an agency to acknowledge receipt of a
Privacy Act request within ten days and to provide the requested
records within thirty days.
At many agencies, FOIA and Privacy Act requests are
processed by the same personnel. When there is a backlog of
requests, it takes longer to receive a response. As a practical
matter, there is little that a requester can do when an agency
response is delayed. Requesters should be patient.
Agencies generally process requests in the order in which
they were received. Some agencies will expedite the processing
of urgent requests. Anyone with a pressing need for records
should consult with the agency Privacy Act officer about how to
ask for expedited treatment of requests.
G. Reasons Access May Be Denied Under the Privacy Act
Not all records about an individual must be disclosed under
the Privacy Act. Some records may be withheld to protect
important government interests such as national security or law
enforcement.
The Privacy Act exemptions are different than the exemptions
of the FOIA. Under the FOIA, any record may be withheld from
disclosure if it contains exempt information when a request is
received. The decision to apply an FOIA exemption is made only
after a request has been made. In contrast, Privacy Act
exemptions apply not to a record but to a system of records.
Before an agency can apply a Privacy Act exemption, the agency
must first issue a regulation stating that there may be exempt
records in that system of records.
Without reviewing system notices or agency regulations, it
is hard to tell whether particular Privacy Act records are exempt
from disclosure. However, it is a safe assumption that any
system of records that qualifies for an exemption has been
exempted by the agency.
Since most record systems are not exempt, the exemptions are
not relevant to most requests. Also, agencies do not always rely
upon available Privacy Act exemptions unless there is a specific
reason to do so. Thus, some records that could be withheld will
nevertheless be disclosed upon request.
Because Privacy Act exemptions are complex and used
infrequently, most requesters need not worry about them. The
exemptions are discussed here for those interested in the Act's
details and for reference when an agency withholds records.
Anyone needing more information about the Privacy Act's
exemptions can begin by reading the relevant sections of the Act.
The complete text of the Act is reprinted in an appendix to this
guide.[28]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 34 of 59
The Privacy Act's exemptions differ from those of the FOIA
in another important way. The FOIA is mostly a disclosure law.
Information exempt under the FOIA is exempt from disclosure only.
The Privacy Act, however, imposes many separate requirements on
personal records. Some systems of records are exempt from the
disclosure requirements, but no system is exempt from all Privacy
Act requirements.
For example, no system of records is ever exempt from the
requirement that a description of the system be published. No
system of records can be exempted from the limitations on
disclosure of the records outside of the agency. No system is
exempt from the requirement to maintain an accounting for
disclosures. No system is exempt from the restriction against
the maintenance of unauthorized information on the exercise of
First Amendment rights. All systems are subject to the
requirement that reasonable efforts be taken to assure that
records disclosed outside the agency be accurate, complete,
timely, and relevant. Each agency must maintain proper
administrative controls and security for all systems. Finally,
the Privacy Act's criminal penalties remain fully applicable to
each system of records.
1. General Exemptions
There are two general exemptions under the Privacy Act. The
first applies to all records maintained by the Central
Intelligence Agency. The second applies to selected records
maintained by an agency or component whose principal function is
any activity pertaining to criminal law enforcement. Records of
criminal law enforcement agencies can be exempt under the Privacy
Act if the records consist of (A) information compiled to
identify individual criminal offenders and which consists only of
identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and
disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement,
release, and parole and probation status; (B) criminal
investigatory records associated with an identifiable individual;
or (C) reports identifiable to a particular individual compiled
at any stage from arrest through release from supervision.
Systems of records subject to the general exemptions may be
exempted from many of the Privacy Act's requirements. Exemption
from the Act's access and correction provisions is the most
important. An individual has no right under the Privacy Act to
ask for a copy of or to seek correction of a record subject to
the general exemptions.
In practice, these exemptions are not as expansive as they
sound. Most agencies that have exempt records will accept and
process Privacy Act requests. The records will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. Agencies will often disclose any information
that does not require protection. Agencies also tend to follow a
similar policy for requests for correction.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 35 of 59
Individuals interested in obtaining records from the Central
Intelligence Agency or from law enforcement agencies should not
be discouraged from making requests for access. Even if the
Privacy Act access exemption is applied, portions of the record
may still be disclosable under the FOIA. This is a primary
reason individuals should cite both the Privacy Act and the FOIA
when requesting records.
The general exemption from access does prevent requesters from
filing a lawsuit under the Privacy Act when access is denied.
The right to sue under the FOIA is not changed because of a
Privacy Act exemption.
2. Specific Exemptions
There are seven specific Privacy Act exemptions that can be
applied to systems of records. Records subject to these
exemptions are not exempt from as many of the Act's requirements
as are the records subject to the general exemptions. However,
records exempt under the specific exemptions are likely to be
exempt from the Privacy Act's access and correction provisions.
Nevertheless, since the access and correction exemptions are not
always applied when available, those seeking records should not
be discouraged from making a request. Also, the FOIA can be used
to seek access to records exempt under the Privacy Act.
The first specific exemption covers record systems
containing information properly classified in the interest of
national defense or foreign policy. Classified information is
also exempt from disclosure under the FOIA and will normally be
unavailable under either the FOIA and Privacy Acts.
The second specific exemption applies to systems of records
containing investigatory material compiled for law enforcement
purposes other than material covered by the general law
enforcement exemption. The specific law enforcement exemption is
limited when -- as a result of the maintenance of the records --
an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which
he or she would be entitled by federal law or for which he or she
would otherwise be entitled. In such a case, disclosure is
required except where disclosure would reveal the identity of a
confidential source who furnished information to the government
under an express promise that the identity of the source would be
held in confidence. If the information was collected from a
confidential source before the effective date of the Privacy Act
(September 27, 1975), an implied promise of confidentiality is
sufficient to permit withholding of the identity of the
source.[29]
The third specific exemption applies to systems of records
maintained in connection with providing protective services to
the President of the United States or other individuals who
receive protection from the Secret Service.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 36 of 59
The fourth specific exemption applies to systems of records
required by statute to be maintained and used solely as
statistical records.
The fifth specific exemption covers investigatory material
compiled solely to determine suitability, eligibility, or
qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service,
federal contracts, or access to classified information. However,
this exemption applies only to the extent that disclosure of
information would reveal the identity of a confidential source
who provided the information under a promise of confidentiality.
The sixth specific exemption applies to systems of records
that contain testing or examination material used solely to
determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion
in federal service, but only when disclosure would compromise the
objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process.
Effectively, this exemption permits withholding of questions used
in employment tests.
The seventh specific exemption covers evaluation material
used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services.
The material is only exempt to the extent that disclosure would
reveal the identity of a confidential source who provided the
information under a promise of confidentiality.
3. Medical Records
Medical records maintained by federal agencies -- for
example, records at Veterans Administration hospitals -- are not
formally exempt from the Privacy Act's access provisions.
However, the Privacy Act authorizes a special procedure for
medical records that operates, at least in part, like an
exemption.
Agencies may deny individuals direct access to medical
records, including psychological records, if the agency deems it
necessary. An agency normally reviews medical records requested
by an individual. If the agency determines that direct
disclosure is unwise, it can arrange for disclosure to a
physician selected by the individual or possibly to another
person chosen by the individual.
4. Litigation Records
The Privacy Act's access provisions include a general
limitation on access to litigation records. The Act does not
require an agency to disclose to an individual any information
compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or
proceeding. This limitation operates like an exemption, although
there is no requirement that the exemption be applied by
regulation to a system of records before it can be used.
H. Administrative Appeal Procedures For Denial of Access
Unlike the FOIA, the Privacy Act does not provide for an
administrative appeal of the denial of access. However, many
agencies have established procedures that will allow Privacy Act
requesters to appeal a denial of access without going to court.
An administrative appeal is often allowed under the Privacy Act,
even though it is not required, because many individuals cite
both the FOIA and Privacy Act when making a request. The FOIA
provides specifically for an administrative appeal, and agencies
are required to consider an appeal under the FOIA.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 37 of 59
When a Privacy Act request for access is denied, agencies
usually inform the requester of any appeal rights that are
available. If no information on appeal rights is included in the
denial letter, the requester should ask the Privacy Act Officer.
Unless an agency has established an alternative procedure, it is
possible that an appeal filed directly with the head of the
agency will be considered by the agency.
When a request for access is denied under the Privacy Act,
the agency explains the reason for the denial. The explanation
must name the system of records and explain which exemption is
applicable to the system. An appeal may be made on the basis
that the record is not exempt, that the system of records has not
been properly exempted, or that the record is exempt but no harm
to an important interest will result if the record is disclosed.
There are three basic elements to a Privacy Act appeal
letter. First, the letter should state that the appeal is being
made under the Privacy Act of 1974. If the FOIA was cited when
the request for access was made, the letter should state that the
appeal is also being made under the FOIA. This is important
because the FOIA grants requesters statutory appeal rights.
Second, a Privacy Act appeal letter should identify the
denial that is being appealed and the records that were withheld.
The appeal letter should also explain why the denial of access
was improper or unnecessary.
Third, the appeal should include the requester's name and
address. It is a good practice for a requester to also include a
telephone number when making an appeal.
Appendix 1 includes a sample letter of appeal.
I: Amending Records Under the Privacy Act
The Privacy Act grants an important right in addition to the
ability to inspect records. The Act permits an individual to
request a correction of a record that is not accurate, relevant,
timely, or complete. This remedy allows an individual to correct
errors and to prevent incorrect information from being
disseminated by the agency or used unfairly against the
individual.
The right to seek a correction extends only to records
subject to the Privacy Act. Also, an individual can only correct
errors contained in a record that pertains to himself or herself.
Records disclosed under the FOIA cannot be amended through the
Privacy Act unless the records are also subject to the Privacy
Act. Records about unrelated events or about other people cannot
be amended unless the records are in a Privacy Act file
maintained under the name of the individual who is seeking to
make the correction.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 38 of 59
A request to amend a record should be in writing. Agency
regulations explain the procedure in greater detail, but the
process is not complicated. A letter requesting an amendment of
a record will normally be addressed to the Privacy Act officer of
the agency or to the agency official responsible for the
maintenance of the record system containing the erroneous
information. The envelope containing the request should be
marked "Privacy Act Amendment Request" on the lower left corner.
There are five basic elements to a request for amending a
Privacy Act record.
First, the letter should state that it is a request to amend
a record under the Privacy Act of 1974.
Second, the request should identify the specific record and
the specific information in the record for which an amendment is
being sought.
Third, the request should state why the information is not
accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. Supporting evidence may
be included with the request.
Fourth, the request should state what new or additional
information, if any, should be included in place of the erroneous
information. Evidence of the validity of the new or additional
information should be included. If the information in the file
is wrong and needs to be removed rather than supplemented or
corrected, the request should make this clear.
Fifth, the request should include the name and address of
the requester. It is a good idea for a requester to include a
telephone number.
Appendix 1 includes a sample letter requesting amendment of
a Privacy Act record.
J. Appeals and Requirements For Agency Responses
An agency that receives a request for amendment under the
Privacy Act must acknowledge receipt of the request within ten
days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays). The
agency must promptly rule on the request.
The agency may make the amendment requested. If so, the
agency must notify any person or agency to which the record had
previously been disclosed of the correction.
If the agency refuses to make the change requested, the
agency must inform the requester of: (1) the agency's refusal to
amend the record; (2) the reason for refusing to amend the
request; and (3) the procedures for requesting a review of the
denial. The agency must provide the name and business address of
the official responsible for conducting the review.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 39 of 59
An agency must decide an appeal of a denial of a request for
amendment within thirty days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays), unless the time period is extended by the agency
for good cause. If the appeal is granted, the record will be
corrected.
If the appeal is denied, the agency must inform the
requester of the right to judicial review. In addition, a
requester whose appeal has been denied also has the right to
place in the agency file a concise statement of disagreement with
the information that was the subject of the request for
amendment.
When a statement of disagreement has been filed and an
agency is disclosing the disputed information, the agency must
mark the information and provide copies of the statement of
disagreement. The agency may also include a concise statement of
its reasons for not making the requested amendments. The agency
must also give a copy of the statement of disagreement to any
person or agency to whom the record had previously been
disclosed.
K. Filing a Judicial Appeal
The Privacy Act provides a civil remedy whenever an agency
denies access to a record or refuses to amend a record. An
individual may sue an agency if the agency fails to maintain
records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as
is necessary to assure fairness in any agency determination and
the agency makes a determination that is adverse to the
individual. An individual may also sue an agency if the agency
fails to comply with any other Privacy Act provision in a manner
that has an adverse effect on the individual.
The Privacy Act protects a wide range of rights about
personal records maintained by federal agencies. The most
important are the right to inspect records and the right to seek
correction of records. Other rights have also been mentioned
here, and still others can be found in the text of the Act. Most
of these rights can become the subject of litigation.
An individual may file a lawsuit against an agency in the
federal district court in which the individual lives, in which
the records are situated, or in the District of Columbia. A
lawsuit must be filed within two years from the date on which the
basis for the lawsuit arose.
Most individuals require the assistance of an attorney to
file a judicial appeal. An individual who files a lawsuit and
substantially prevails may be awarded reasonable attorney fees
and litigation costs reasonably incurred. Some requesters may be
able to handle their own appeal without an attorney. Since this
is not a litigation guide, details about the judicial appeal
process have not been included. Anyone considering filing an
appeal can begin by reviewing the provisions of the Privacy Act
on civil remedies.[30]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 40 of 59
NOTES:
1. A Citizen's Guide on How to Use the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act in Requesting Government Documents, House
Report No. 95-796, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
2. A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and
the Privacy Act of 1974 To Request Government Records, House
Report No. 100-199, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)
3. Public Law 100-503.
4. A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and
the Privacy Act of 1974 To Request Government Records, House
Report No. 101-193, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).
5. A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and
the Privacy Act of 1974 To Request Government Records, House
Report No. 102-146, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991).
6. Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822, in G.P. Hunt, ed., IX
The Writings of James Madison 103 (1910). The Committee wishes
to acknowledge the assistance of Harold C. Relyea, Specialist,
American National Government, Government Division, Congressional
Research Service, in the preparation of this report.
7. This Guide is primarily intended to help the general public.
It includes a complete explanation of the basics of the two laws.
In the interest of producing a guide that would be both simple
and useful to the intended audience, the Committee deliberately
avoided addressing some of the issues that are highly
controversial. The Committee cautions against treating the
neutrally written descriptions contained in this report as
definitive expressions of the Committee's views of the law or
congressional intent. The Committee has expressed its views on
some of these issues in other reports. See, for example,
Security Classification Policy and Executive Order 12356, House
Report No. 97-731, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982); Who Cares About
Privacy? Oversight of the Privacy Act of 1974 by the Office of
Management and Budget and by the Congress, House Report 98-455,
98th Cong., 1st Sess.(1983); Electronic Collection and
Dissemination of Information by Federal Agencies: A Policy
Overview, House Report 99-560, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986);
Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1986, House Report 99-
832, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) (report to accompany H.R. 4862).
The latter report is a legislative report for a bill reforming
the business procedures of the FOIA. The bill did not become
law. The 1986 amendments to the FOIA were made by the Freedom of
Information Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-570. There were no
committee reports in either House or Senate accompanying the
Freedom of Information Reform Act.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 41 of 59
8. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Freedom of Information
Case List (published annually).
9. The Presidential Records Act of 1978, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207
(1982), does make the documentary materials of former Presidents
subject to the FOIA in part. Presidential papers and documents
generated after January 20, 1981, will be available -- subject to
certain restrictions and delays -- under the general framework of
the FOIA.
10. Virtually all official records of the Congress are available
to the public. The Congressional Record, all bills introduced in
the House and the Senate, and all committee reports (except for
those containing classified information) are printed and
disseminated. Most committee hearings are also printed and
available. Copies of most congressional publications are
available at federal depository libraries throughout the county.
Historical records of the Congress are made available in
accordance with procedures established by House and Senate rules.
In addition, almost all activities of the Congress take
place in public. The sessions of the House and Senate are
normally open to the public and televised. Most committee
hearings and markups are open to the public, and some are
televised.
11. See, e.g., the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
1681 et seq. (1982) (providing for access to files of credit
bureaus); the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232(g) (1982) (providing for access to
records maintained by schools and colleges). Some states have
enacted laws allowing individuals to have access to personnel
records maintained by employers. See, e.g., Michigan Compiled
Laws Annotated 423.501.
12. When records are maintained in a computer, an agency is
required to retrieve information in response to an FOIA request.
The process of retrieving the information may result in the
creation of a new document when the data is printed out on paper
or written on computer tape or disk. Since this may be the only
way computerized data can be disclosed, agencies are required to
provide the data even if it means a new document must be created.
13. The United States Government Manual is sold by the
Superintendent of Documents of the U.S. Government Printing
Office. Virtually every public library should have a copy on its
shelves.
14. All agencies have issued FOIA regulations that describe the
request process in greater detail. For example, large agencies
may have several components each of which has its own FOIA rules.
A requester who can find agency FOIA regulations in the Code of
Federal Regulations (available in many libraries) might find it
useful to check these regulations before making a request. A
requester who follows the agency's specific procedures may
receive a faster response. However, the simple procedures
suggested in this guide will be adequate to meet the minimum
requirements for an FOIA request.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 42 of 59
15. Agencies that take more than ten days to respond to a request
do not always notify each requester that an extension has been
invoked.
16. At the time that this guide was prepared, the current
Executive Order on Security Classification was E.O. 12356 which
was promulgated by President Reagan on April 2, 1982. The text
of the order can be found at 47 Federal Register 14874-84 (April
6, 1982). The rules for mandatory review for declassification
are in Section 3.4 of the Executive Order.
17. 26 U.S.C. 6103 (1982).
18. 13 U.S.C. 9 (1982).
19. See Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential
Commercial Information, Executive Order 12600 (June 23, 1987).
20. Agency FOIA regulations will normally describe the appeal
procedures and requirements with more specificity. At some
agencies, decisions on FOIA appeals have been delegated to other
agency officials. Requesters who have an opportunity to review
agency regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (available
in many libraries) may be able to speed up the processing of the
appeal. However, following the simple procedures described in
this Guide will be sufficient to maintain a proper appeal.
21. More information on judicial review under the FOIA and
Privacy Act can be found in Adler, Litigation Under the Federal
Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation) (published annually).
22. The Privacy Act applies to some records that are not
maintained by an agency. Subsection (m) of the Act provides
that, when an agency provides by contract for the operation of a
system of records on its behalf, the requirements of the Privacy
Act apply to those records. As a result, some records maintained
outside of a federal agency are subject to the Privacy Act.
Descriptions of these systems are published in the Federal
Register. However, most records maintained outside of federal
agencies are not subject to the Privacy Act.
23. The United States Government Manual is sold by the
Superintendent of Documents of the U.S. Government Printing
Office. Virtually every public library should have a copy.
24. Each system notice contains the name of the system; its
location; the categories of individuals covered by the system;
the categories of records in the system; the legal authority for
maintenance of the system; the routine disclosures that may be
made for records in the system; the policies and practices of
storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of
records; the name and address of the manager of the system;
procedures for requesting access to the records; procedures for
requesting correction or amendment of the records; the source of
the information in the system; and a description of any
disclosure exemptions that may be applied to the records in the
system.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 43 of 59
25. Agencies are required to publish in the Federal Register a
description of each system of records when the system is
established or amended. In the past, agencies were required to
publish an annual compilation in the Federal Register, but that
requirement was eliminated in 1982. As a result, for most
agencies it will be difficult to find a complete list of all
systems of records in the Federal Register. Some agencies do,
however, reprint all system notices from time to time. An
agency's Privacy Act officer may be able to provide more
information about the agency's publication practices.
26. All agencies have Privacy Act regulations that describe the
request process in greater detail. Large agencies may have
several components, each of which has its own Privacy Act rules.
Requesters who can find agency Privacy Act regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations (available in many libraries) might
read these regulations before making a request. A requester who
follows the agency's specific procedures may receive a faster
response. However, the simple procedures suggested in this guide
are adequate to meet the minimum statutory requirements for a
Privacy Act request.
27. An individual seeking records about himself or herself under
the FOIA should not be charged review charges. The only charges
applicable under the FOIA are search and copy charges.
28. In 1975, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance
to federal agencies on the Privacy Act of 1974. Those guidelines
are a good source of commentary and explanation for many of the
provisions of the Act. The OMB guidelines can be found at 40
Federal Register 28948 (July 9, 1975).
29. This distinction between express and implied promises of
confidentiality is repeated throughout the specific exemptions of
the Privacy Act.
30. See note 21.
*****
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 44 of 59
APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE REQUEST AND APPEAL LETTERS
A. Freedom of Information Act Request Letter
Agency Head
[or Freedom of Information Act Officer]
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear :
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I
request that a copy of the following documents [or documents
containing the following information] be provided to me:
[identify the documents or information as specifically as
possible].
In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you
should know that I am (insert a suitable description of the
requester and the purpose of the request).
[Sample requester descriptions: a representative of the
news media affiliated with the ___________ newspaper (magazine,
television station, etc.), and this request is made as part of
news gathering and not for a commercial use. affiliated with an
educational or noncommercial scientific institution, and this
request is made for a scholarly or scientific purpose and not for
a commercial use. an individual seeking information for personal
use and not for a commercial use. affiliated with a private
corporation and am seeking information for use in the company's
business.]
[Optional] I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a
maximum of $_____. If you estimate that the fees will exceed
this limit, please inform me first.
[Optional] I request a waiver of all fees for this request.
Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public
interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to
public understanding of the operations or activities of the
government and is not primarily in my commercial interest.
[Include a specific explanation.]
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone number [Optional]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 45 of 59
B. Freedom of Information Act Appeal Letter
Agency Head or Appeal Officer
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Freedom of Information Act Appeal
Dear :
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act. On
(date), I requested documents under the Freedom of Information
Act. My request was assigned the following identification
number: __________.
On (date), I received a response to my request in a letter
signed by (name of official). I appeal the denial of my request.
[Optional] The documents that were withheld must be
disclosed under the FOIA because....
[Optional] I appeal the decision to deny my request for a
waiver of fees. I believe that I am entitled to a waiver of
fees. Disclosure of the documents I requested is in the public
interest because the information is likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or
activities of government and is not primarily in my commercial
interest.
(Provide details)
[Optional] I appeal the decision to require me to pay review
costs for this request. I am not seeking the documents for a
commercial use. (Provide details)
[Optional] I appeal the decision to require me to pay search
charges for this request. I am a reporter seeking information as
part of news gathering and not for commercial use.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone Number [Optional]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 46 of 59
C. Privacy Act Request for Access Letter
Privacy Act Officer
[or System of Records Manager]
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Privacy Act Request for Access
Dear :
This is a request under the Privacy Act of 1974.
I request a copy of any records [or specifically named
records] about me maintained at your agency.
[Optional] To help you to locate my records, I have had the
following contacts with your agency: [mention job applications,
periods of employment, loans or agency programs applied for,
etc.].
[Optional] Please consider that this request is also made
under the Freedom of Information Act. Please provide any
additional information that may be available under the FOIA.
[Optional] I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a
maximum of $_____. If you estimate that the fees will exceed
this limit, please inform me first.
[Optional] Enclosed is [a notarized signature or other
identifying document] that will verify my identity.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone number [Optional]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 47 of 59
D. Privacy Act Denial of Access Appeal
Agency Head or Appeal Officer
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Appeal of Denial of Privacy Act Access Request
Dear :
This is an appeal under the Privacy Act of the denial of my
request for access to records.
On (date), I requested access to records under the Privacy
Act of 1974. My request was assigned the following
identification number: _____________. On (date), I received a
response to my request in a letter signed by (name of official).
I appeal the denial of my request.
[Optional] The records that were withheld should be
disclosed to me because ....
[Optional] Please consider that this appeal is also made
under the Freedom of Information Act. Please provide any
additional information that may be available under the FOIA.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone Number [Optional]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 48 of 59
E. Privacy Act Request to Amend Records
Privacy Act Officer
[or System of Records Manager]
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Privacy Act Request to Amend Records
Dear :
This is a request under the Privacy Act to amend records
about myself maintained by your agency.
I believe that the following information is not correct:
[Describe the incorrect information as specifically as possible].
The information is not (accurate) (relevant) (timely)
(complete) because ....
[Optional] Enclosed are copies of documents that show that
the information is incorrect.
I request that the information be [deleted] [changed to
read:].
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone Number [Optional]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 49 of 59
F. Privacy Act Appeal of Refusal to Amend Records
Agency Head or Appeal Officer
Name of Agency
Address of Agency
City, State, Zip Code
Re: Privacy Act Appeal of Refusal to Amend Records
Dear :
This is an appeal under the Privacy Act of the refusal of
your agency to amend records as I requested.
On (date), I requested that records about me be amended. My
request was assigned the following identification number _______.
On (date), I was informed by (name of official) that my request
was rejected. I appeal the rejection of my request.
The rejection of my request for amendment was wrong because
....
[Optional] I enclose additional evidence that shows that the
records are incorrect and that the amendment I requested is
appropriate.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone Number [Optional]
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 50 of 59
APPENDIX 2:
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS, AND PRINTS
(LISTED CHRONOLOGICALLY BY PUBLICATION DATE)
Note on availability: Most of these publications are out of
print. Copies of all congressional publications should be
available at Federal Depository Libraries located throughout the
country.
1964
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Clarifying and
Protecting the Right of the Public to Information and for Other
Purposes. S. Rept. 1219, 88th Congress, 2d Session. 1964.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information.
Hearings, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1964.
1965
House Committee on Government Operations. Federal Public
Records Law. Hearings, 89th Congress, 2d Session. 1965.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Administrative Procedure
Act. Hearings, 89th Congress, 1st Session. 1965.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Clarifying and
Protecting the Right of the Public to Information, and for Other
Purposes. S. Rept. 813, 89th Congress, 1st Session. 1965.
1966
House Committee on Government Operations. Clarifying and
Protecting the Right of the Public to Information. H. Rept.
1497, 89th Congress, 2d Session. 1966.
1967
House Committee on the Judiciary. Codification of Public
Law 89-487. H. Rept. 125, 90th Congress, 1st Session. 1967.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amending Section 552 of
Title 5, United States Code. S. Rept. 248, 90th Congress, 1st
Session. 1967.
1968
House Committee on Government Operations. Freedom of
Information Act (Compilation and Analysis of Departmental
Regulations Implementing 5 U.S.C. 552). Committee print, 90th
Congress, 2d Session. 1968.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 51 of 59
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Freedom of
Information Act (Ten Months Review). Committee print, 90th
Congress, 2d Session. 1968.
1972
House Committee on Government Operations. Administration of
the Freedom of Information Act. H. Rept. 92-1419, 92nd Congress,
2d Session. 1972.
House Committee on Government Operations. Sale or
Distribution of Mailing Lists By Federal Agencies. Hearings,
92nd Congress, 2d Session. 1972.
House Committee on Government Operations. U.S. Government
Information Policies and Practices-Administration and Operation
of the Freedom of Information Act. (Parts 4-6). Hearings, 92nd
Congress, 2d Session. 1972.
House Committee on Government Operations. U.S. Government
Information Policies and Practices-Security Classification
Problems Involving Subsection (b)(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act. (Part 7). Hearings, 92nd Congress, 2d Session.
1972.
1973
House Committee on Government Operations. Availability of
Information to Congress. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 1st Session.
1973.
House Committee on Government Operations. Executive
Classification of Information-Security Classification Problems
Involving Exemption (b)(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552). H. Rept. 93-221, 93rd Congress, 1st Session. 1973.
House Committee on Government Operations. The Freedom of
Information Act. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 1st Session. 1973.
Senate Committee on Government Operations and Committee on
the Judiciary. Executive Privilege, Secrecy in Government,
Freedom of Information. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 1st Session.
1973.
1974
House Committee on Government Operations. Amending Section
552 of Title 5, United States Code, Known as the Freedom of
Information Act. H. Rept. 93-876, 93rd Congress, 2d Session.
1974.
House Committee on Government Operations. Amending the
Freedom of Information Act to Require that Information Be Made
Available to Congress. H. Rept. 93-990, 93rd Congress, 2d
Session. 1974.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 52 of 59
House Committee on Government Operations. Security
Classification Reform. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 2d Session.
1974.
House of Representatives. Message from the President of the
United States. Vetoing H.R. 12471, Amend Freedom of Information
Act. H. Doc. 93-383, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
House/Senate Committee of Conference. Freedom of
Information Act Amendments. H. Rept. 93-1380 or S. Rept. 931200,
93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amending the Freedom of
Information Act. S. Rept. 93-854, 93rd Congress, 2d Session.
1974.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information
Act Source Book: Legislative Materials, Cases, Articles. S. Doc.
93-82, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
1975
House Committee on Government Operations and Senate
Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information Act and
Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-502). Source Book: Legislative
History, Texts, and Other Documents. Joint committee print, 94th
Congress, 1st Session. 1975.
1977
House Committee on Government Operations. Business Record
Exemption of the Freedom of Information Act. Hearings, 95th
Congress, 1st Session. 1977.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information
Act. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st Session. 1977.
1978
House Committee on Government Operations. FBI Compliance
with the Freedom of Information Act. Hearing, 95th Congress, 2d
Session. 1978.
House Committee on Government Operations. Freedom of
Information Act Requests for Business Data and Reverse-FOIA
Lawsuits. H. Rept. 95-1382, 95th Congress, 2d Session. 1978.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Erosion of Law
Enforcement Intelligence and Its Impact on the Public Security.
Committee print, 95th Congress, 2d Session. 1978.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Erosion of Law
Enforcement Intelligence and Its Impact on the Public Security.
Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st and 2d Sessions. 1977-1978.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 53 of 59
1979
House Committee on Government Operations. Security
Classification Exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.
Hearing, 95th Congress, 1st Session. 1979.
1980
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Impact of
the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act on
Intelligence Activities. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st Session.
1980.
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Oversight of the
Administration of the Federal Freedom of Information Act.
Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Agency Implementation of
the 1974 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. Committee
print, 95th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.
1981
House Committee on Government Operations. Freedom of
Information Act Oversight. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st Session.
1981.
House Committee on Government Operations. The Freedom of
Information Act: Central Intelligence Agency Exemptions.
Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d Session.
1981
House Committee on Government Operations. The Freedom of
Information Act: Federal Law Enforcement Implementation. Hearing,
96th Congress, 1st Session.
1982
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information
Act. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st Session. 1982.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Freedom of
Information Reform Act. S. Rept. 97-690, 97th Congress, 2d
Session. 1982.
1983
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information
Reform Act. S. Rept. 98-221, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1983.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 54 of 59
1984
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of Information
Reform Act. Hearings, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1984.
1985
House Committee on Government Operations. The Freedom of
Information Reform Act. Hearings, 98th Congress, 2d Session.
1985.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amendments to the
Freedom of Information Act. Hearing, 98th Congress, 2d Session.
1985.
1986
House Committee on Government Operations. Freedom of
Information Act Amendments of 1986. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2d
Session. 1986.
House Committee on Government Operations. Freedom of
Information Act Amendments of 1986. H. Rept. 99-832, 99th
Congress, 2d Session. 1986.
1988
House Committee on Government Operations. FOIA: Alternate
Dispute Resolution Proposals. Hearings, 100th Congress, 1st
Session. 1988.
1989
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Freedom of
Information Act. Hearing, 100th Congress, 2d Session. 1989.
1990
House Committee on Government Operations. Federal
Information Dissemination Policies and Practices. Hearings,
101st Congress, 1st Session. 1990.
House Committee on Government Operations. Paperwork
Reduction and Federal Information Resources Management Act of
1990. H. Rept. 101-927, 101st Congress, 2d Session. 1990.
1991
House Committee on Government Operations, Creative Ways of
Using and Disseminating Federal Information. Hearings, 102nd
Congress, 1st & 2d Session. 1991, 1992.
*****
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 55 of 59
APPENDIX 3:
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS ON
THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS, AND PRINTS
(LISTED CHRONOLOGICALLY BY PUBLICATION DATE)
Note on availability: Most of these publications are out of
print. Copies of all congressional publications should be
available at Federal Depository Libraries located throughout the
country.
1972
House Committee on Government Operations. Records
Maintained By Government Agencies. Hearings, 92nd Congress, 2d
Session. 1972.
1974
House Committee on Government Operations. Access to
Records. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
House Committee on Government Operations. Federal
Information Systems and Plans-Federal Use and Development of
Advanced Information Technology. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 1st
and 2d Sessions. 1973-1974.
House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy Act of
1974. H. Rept. 93-1416, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
Senate Committee on Government Operations. Protecting
Individual Privacy in Federal Gathering, Use and Disclosure of
Information. S. Rept. 93-1183, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
Senate Committee on Government Operations. Materials
Pertaining to S. 3418 and Protecting Individual Privacy in
Federal Gathering, Use and Disclosure of Information. Committee
print, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
Senate Committee on Government Operations and Committee on
the Judiciary. Privacy: The Collection, Use, and Computerization
of Personal Data. Joint hearings, 93rd Congress, 2d Session.
1974.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Federal Data Banks and
Constitutional Rights. [Summary.] Committee print, 93rd
Congress, 2d Session. 1974.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Federal Data Banks and
Constitutional Rights. Committee print, 93rd Congress, 2d
Session. 1974. 6 v.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 56 of 59
1975
House Committee on Government Operations. Central
Intelligence Agency Exemption in the Privacy Act of 1974.
Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st Session. 1975.
House Committee on Government Operations. Implementation of
the Privacy Act of 1974: Data Banks. Hearing, 94th Congress, 1st
Session. 1975.
1976
House Committee on Government Operations. Notification to
Victims of Improper Intelligence Agency Activities. Hearings,
94th Congress, 2d Session. 1976.
Senate Committee on Government Operations and House
Committee on Government Operations. Legislative History of the
Privacy Act of 1974, S. 3418 (Public Law 93-579): Source Book on
Privacy. Joint committee print, 94th Congress, 2d Session. 1976.
1977
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and House Committee
on Government Operations. Final Report of the Privacy Protection
Study Commission. Joint hearing, 95th Congress, 1st Session.
1977.
1978
House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy and
Confidentiality Report and Final Recommendations of the
Commission on Federal Paperwork. Hearing, 95th Congress, 1st
Session. 1978.
House Committee on Government Operations. Right to Privacy
Proposals of the Privacy Protection Study Commission. Hearings,
95th Congress, 2d Session. 1978.
1980
House Committee on Government Operations. Federal Privacy
of Medical Information Act. H. Rept. 96-832 Part 1, 96th
Congress, 2d Session., 1980.
House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy of
Medical Records. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st Session. 1980.
House Committee on Government Operations. Public Reaction
to Privacy Issues. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st Session. 1980.
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Federal
Privacy of Medical Information Act. H. Rept. 96-832 Part 2, 96th
Congress, 2d Session. 1980.
House Committee on Ways and Means. Description and Brief
Analysis of H.R. 5935, Federal Privacy of Medical Information
Act. Committee print, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 57 of 59
House Committee on Ways and Means. Federal Privacy of
Medical Information Act. Hearing, 96th Congress, 2d Session.
1980.
House Committee on Ways and Means. Federal Privacy of
Medical Information Act, H.R. 5935. Committee print, 96th
Congress, 2d Session. 1980.
1981
House Committee on Government Operations. Confidentiality
of Insurance Records. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st and 2d
Sessions. 1981.
House Committee on Government Operations. Debt Collection
Act of 1981. Hearing, 97th Congress, 1st Session. 1981.
House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy Act
Amendments. H. Rept. 97-147 Part 1, 97th Congress, 1st Session.
1981.
1983
House Committee on Government Operations. Oversight of the
Privacy Act of 1974. Hearings, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1983.
House Committee on Government Operations. Who Cares About
Privacy? Oversight of the Privacy Act of 1974 by the Office of
Management and Budget and by the Congress. H. Rept. 98-455, 98th
Congress, 1st Session. 1983.
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Oversight of
Computer Matching to Detect Fraud and Mismanagement in Government
Programs. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d Session. 1983.
1984
House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy and 1984:
Public Opinions on Privacy Issues. Hearing, 98th Congress, 1st
Session. 1984.
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Computer
Matching: Taxpayer Records. Hearing, 98th Congress, 2d Session.
1984.
1986
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Computer Matching
and Privacy Protection Act of 1986. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2d
Session. 1986.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 58 of 59
1987
House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching
and Privacy Protection Act of 1987. Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st
Session. 1987.
1988
House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching
and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. H. Rept. 100-802, 100th
Congress, 2d Session. 1988.
1990
House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching
and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990. Hearing, 101st
Congress, 2d Session. 1990.
House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching
and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990. H. Rept. 101-768,
101st Congress, 2d Session. 1990.
House Committee on Government Operations. Data Protection,
Computers, and Changing Information Practices. Hearing, 101st
Congress, 2d Session. 1990.
1991
House Committee on Government Operations. Domestic and
International Data Protection Issues. Hearing, 102nd Congress,
1st Session. 1991.
1992
House Committee on Government Operations. Designing Genetic
Information Policy: The Need for an Independent Policy Review of
the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of the Human Genome
Project. H. Rept. 102-478, 102nd Congress, 2d Session. 1992.
Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:
Page 59 of 59
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena