Case No. VFA-0353, 26 DOE ¶ 80,240

December 19, 1997

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Information Focus on Energy

Date of Filing: November 20, 1997

Case Number: VFA-0353

On November 20, 1997, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) received an Appeal filed by Information Focus on Energy (IFOE) from a determination that the Assistant Inspector General for Resource Management of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued to it. The OIG issued this determination in response to a request for information that IFOE submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. The Appeal, if granted, would require the OIG to conduct a further search for responsive materials.

I. Background

In its FOIA request, IFOE sought access to “the titles, report numbers, and issue dates of all DOE Inspector General Reports” for the years 1988 through 1996. In its initial response to this request, dated February 18, 1997, the OIG provided IFOE with a listing of all reports from this period that had previously been distributed to the public. IFOE appealed this response to the OHA, and in a Decision and Order dated April 17, 1997, the OHA remanded this matter to the OIG with instructions to search for and release all such reports, regardless of whether they had previously been made available to the public, or provide a detailed explanation for withholding such information. Information Focus on Energy, 26 DOE ¶ 80,179 (1997).

Upon remand, OIG conducted another search for responsive documents. Two additional documents were located. Document 1 is a listing of Office of Inspections reports for fiscal years 1987 through 1997. This document was released in its entirety. Document 2 is a

listing of OIG cases closed during fiscal years 1988 through 1996. The OIG withheld portions of this document pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) and 552(b)(7)(C). It is this response that forms the basis for IFOE’s current appeal.

In its submission, IFOE does not contest the OIG’s withholding of portions of Document 2 under the FOIA. Instead, IFOE contends that the OIG’s response is inadequate because it does not explain the contents of Document 2. Specifically, IFOE inquires as to the significance of the date at the top of this document and the meanings of the headings of the last three columns of information: “DATE CLOSED”; “REF TYPE”; and “REF DATE.” In addition, IFOE contests the adequacy of the search for responsive documents.

II. Analysis

A. Adequacy of the OIG’s Response

The FOIA does not require that an agency explain the contents of the documents that it releases. See, e.g., NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 162 (1975) (FOIA does not require agency to produce explanatory materials); Hudgins v. IRS, 620 F. Supp. 19, 21 (D.D.C. 1985) (The “FOIA creates only a right of access to records, not a right to personal services.”). However, as a courtesy to IFOE, we contacted OIG to ascertain the answers to the questions posed in IFOE’s appeal.(1) We were informed that the “DATE CLOSED” column of Document 2 sets forth the date that each case was closed; that the “REF TYPE” column refers to whether the case was resolved through administrative or judicial means; and that the “REF DATE” column sets forth the date that each case was placed on an administrative or judicial resolution track. In addition, the “Tue Jun 24" heading refers to the date that Document 2 was created. See memorandum of December 15, 1997 telephone conversation between Mr. Palmer and Jenise Fonville-Noels, OIG.

B. Adequacy of the Search

The FOIA requires that an agency “conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Truitt). “The standard of reasonableness which we apply to agency search procedures does not require absolute exhaustion of files; instead, it requires a search reasonably calculated to uncover sought materials.” Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Truitt, 897 F.2d at 542. The fact that the results of a search may not meet with the requester’s expectations does not necessarily mean that the search was inadequate. Robert Hale, 25 DOE ¶ 80,101 at 80,501 (1995). Instead, in evaluating the adequacy of a search, our inquiry generally focuses on the scope of the search that was performed. See, e.g., Richard J. Levernier, 25 DOE ¶ 80,102 (1995).

During our communications with the OIG, we also inquired as to the scope of that Office’s search for responsive documents. We were informed that the OIG’s computerized records system was searched, and that it is unlikely that additional responsive documents exist outside of that system. See December 16 memorandum.

In its appeal, IFOE contends that the search was inadequate because, although Document 2 purportedly lists all OIG cases that were closed during fiscal years 1988 through 1996, there are no entries in the “DATE CLOSED” column for the years 1988 through 1990. According to IFOE, this implies the existence of OIG reports during those years that are not included in the information provided to IFOE.

This contention is without merit. As an initial matter, Document 2 is a listing of cases closed during fiscal years 1988 through 1996, not a listing of OIG reports during that period. Most of these cases were closed without the issuance of a report. See December 16 memorandum. Moreover, Document 1 lists 39 OIG reports generated during the years 1988 through 1990. There is no indication in the record that additional OIG reports from those years exist. (2) We therefore reject IFOE’s claim that the OIG’s search for responsive documents was inadequate. We will accordingly deny IFOE’s appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Information Focus on Energy on November 20, 1997 is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Judicial review may be sought in the district in which the requester resides or has a principal place of business, or in which the agency records are located, or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: December 19, 1997

(1)The OIG attempted, without success, to contact IFOE to answer these questions. See memorandum of December 16 telephone conversation between Robert Palmer, OHA Staff Attorney, and Pam Langer, OIG Attorney (December 16 memorandum).

(2)Because of the OIG’s record retention policies, cases that were closed during these years are not included in the OIG’s database.