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.

     The two  parts of  this Order appear to be inconsistent with

each other.   If this, indeed, is not the proper forum to bring a


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 1 of 59


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").

     Congress has  given original  jurisdiction to  the  district

courts to  hear FOIA  cases in which administrative remedies have


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 2 of 59


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


     In all  cases, the appeal deadlines run at the end of twenty

(20) working  days after the original appeal dates, not including


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 3 of 59


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 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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 12 of 59


restrict  disclosure  of  personal  information  to  others  when
disclosure would violate privacy interests.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 13 of 59

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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 15 of 59


FOIA request  in order to identify an existing document or set of
documents containing the desired information.

     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.


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 16 of 59


     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.


                  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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 17 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 18 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 19 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 20 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 21 of 59


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.


     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"


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 24 of 59


invade someone's  privacy.  Under Exemption 6, information can be
withheld only if disclosure "would" invade someone's privacy.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 25 of 59


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.

     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.


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 27 of 59


     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.


                   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]


                  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.


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 28 of 59


     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.

Third, each  agency must  make  reasonable  efforts  to  maintain


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 29 of 59


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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 30 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 32 of 59


or herself.   The  broader and  less specific  a request  is, the
longer it may take for an agency to respond.

     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.


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 33 of 59


     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.

              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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 34 of 59


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]

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 35 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 37 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 38 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 39 of 59


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.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 40 of 59


process have  not been  included.   Anyone considering  filing an
appeal can  begin by  reviewing the provisions of the Privacy Act
on civil remedies.[30]


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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 43 of 59


the  information   in  the  system;  and  a  description  of  any
disclosure exemptions  that may  be applied to the records in the
system.

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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 51 of 59


Regulations Implementing  5 U.S.C.  552).   Committee print, 90th
Congress, 2d Session.  1968.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 52 of 59


Available to  Congress.   H.  Rept.  93-990,  93rd  Congress,  2d
Session.  1974.

     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


Petition for Clarification and FOIA Status Report:  Page 57 of 59


Analysis of  H.R. 5935,  Federal Privacy  of Medical  Information
Act.  Committee print, 96th Congress, 2d Session.  1980.

     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 the Table of Contents for

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY