Case No. VFA-0725

March 25, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: R.E.V. Eng. Services

Date of Filing: February 25, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0725

This Decision and Order concerns an Appeal that was filed by David Ridenour d/b/a/ R.E.V. Eng. Services from a determination issued to him by the Freedom of Information Officer of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Rocky Flats Field Office (Rocky Flats). In this determination, Rocky Flats responded to a request for information that Mr. Ridenour filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. If we were to grant the Appeal, this matter would be remanded to Rocky Flats for a new search for documents responsive to his request.

In his request, Mr. Ridenour seeks access to copies of “acknowledgement” letters pertaining to three FOIA requests that he filed. These letters are often sent out by program offices to FOIA requesters when the time required for processing their request exceeds the statutory limit. The letters usually indicate the reason for the delay and provide a general time frame in which the requester can expect a response. In its response, Rocky Flats states that the files generated in response to these requests were searched, and no responsive documents were located. Mr. Ridenour contends in his Appeal that these letters should be done as a matter of course, and asks that a more comprehensive search be performed.

We have stated on numerous occasions that a FOIA request deserves a thorough and conscientious search for responsive documents, and we have not hesitated to remand a case where it is evident that the search conducted was in fact inadequate. See, e.g., Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 25 DOE ¶ 80,152 (1995). The FOIA, however, requires that a search be reasonable, not exhaustive. "[T]he standard of reasonableness which we apply to agency search procedures does not require absolute exhaustion of the files; instead, it requires a search reasonably calculated to uncover the sought materials." Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In cases such as these, "[t]he issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate." Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

In order to determine whether Rocky Flats’ search was adequate, we contacted the FOIA Officer for that Office, and were informed that no such letters were written with regard to the requests specified by Mr. Ridenour. See memorandum of March 18, 2002 telephone conversation between Robert Palmer, OHA Staff Attorney, and Mary Hammack, Rocky Flats. Any further search would therefore prove fruitless. Consequently, we will deny Mr. Ridenour’s Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by R.E.V. Eng. Services in Case No. VFA-0725 is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review. 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 situated, or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: March 25, 2002