Further, in 1987, the Department of  Justice issued guidelines on waiving fees when FOIA requests are  determined to be in the public interest. Of all new cases  received across the department, headquarters, Albuquerque, and  Richland—the sites selected for our review—received 31 percent (705 of  2,289). DOE Generally Adhered to FOIA Guidance

Based on an analysis of 170 cases, DOE at these three locations generally  followed FOIA and related guidance in its processes for making each of  three major decisions related to fees and fee waivers: (1) determining the  requester’s fee category, (2) determining if a fee waiver is to be granted, and  (3) assessing actual fees, if any, to be charged. DOE also generally adhered to FOIA  guidance by asking requesters to address all relevant fee waiver criteria. In assessing actual fees to be charged, if any, FOIA offices at all three sites  we reviewed charged fees in accordance with guidance. DOE Did Not Always Inform Requesters About Fee and Fee- Waiver Decisions

DOE’s three FOIA offices did not always communicate all the specifics of  their fee-related decisions to requesters. Current FOIA processing guidelines do not require agencies to explicitly  inform requesters of fee-related decisions. Of the three locations, headquarters was most likely to inform  requesters of their fee category. Richland and Albuquerque rarely  communicated fee category determinations to requesters. The three sites also rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee  waiver determinations. Specifically, requesters were not informed of fee  waiver determinations in 87 percent of the completed fee waiver cases that  we reviewed (83 of 95). If requesters do not understand  what determinations have actually been made, they could develop false  expectations for the handling of future FOIA requests. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine, for fiscal year 2004, (1) the volume and  nature of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request processing at the  Department of Energy (DOE), (2) the extent to which the department’s  process for handling fee assessments and waivers is consistent with FOIA  and related guidance, and (3) the extent to which DOE has clearly  communicated its fee-related decisions to requesters. We determined that DOE Headquarters and the department’s sites at  Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Richland, Washington, processed about 77  percent of DOE’s fee waiver cases in fiscal year 2004 and 35 percent of the  cases in which fees were charged. Washington, D.C.:  March 16, 2001.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives the public the right to access information about the federal government. In addressing requests for information, agencies have the authority to assess fees for certain categories of requesters to cover the costs of locating and copying records, as well as discretion to waive fees if specific criteria are met. GAO was asked to determine, for fiscal year 2004, the volume and nature of FOIA request processing at the Department of Energy (DOE), to what extent DOE followed the act and related Office of Management and Budget and Department of Justice guidance in processing cases that involve fees, and to what extent DOE communicated its fee-related decisions to requesters.

What GAO Found

In fiscal year 2004, DOE received 2,289 new FOIA cases, of which 31 percent (705 of 2,289) were received by the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and DOE sites at Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Richland, Washington--the sites selected for our review. Generally, very few of the requests at these sites involved assessments of fees or requests for waivers of possible fees. DOE's process includes several phases ranging from initial processing and acknowledgement to preparing and releasing records to requesters. DOE generally followed FOIA and related guidance when determining fee categories for requesters, fee waivers, and actual fees to be charged. All three sites we reviewed always made explicit determinations about requesters' fee categories in accordance with guidance. DOE also generally adhered to guidance in determining fee waivers by seeking information addressing the prescribed criteria for making fee waiver determinations. In assessing actual fees to be charged, FOIA offices at all three sites charged fees in accordance with guidance. DOE's FOIA offices often did not communicate the specifics of their fee-related decisions to FOIA requesters. For example, while DOE headquarters often informed requesters of determinations about their fee category, the Richland and Albuquerque offices rarely did. In addition, the three sites rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee waiver determinations. Further, when fees were not charged, requesters were rarely informed of the reason. Current FOIA guidelines do not require agencies to inform requesters of fee-related decisions. However, without being informed of fee-related determinations, requesters could misunderstand agency fee determinations and have false expectations for the handling of future FOIA requests.