ࡱ > / ( ) * + , - . T8 \ p
Christa L. B a =
= Z L,8 X@ " 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 ? M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 8 ? M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f 1 ? C a l i b r i 1 C a l i b r i 1 C a l i b r i 1 4 C a l i b r i 1 C a l i b r i 1 C a l i b r i 1 C a l i b r i 1 , > 1 > 1 > 1 > 1 4 1 < C a l i b r i 1 ? C a l i b r i 1 h > C a m b r i a 1 ? C a l i b r i 1 5 C a l i b r i 1 8 ? M i c r o s o f t S a n s S e r i f "$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\) ! "$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\) " "$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\) ' " "$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\) 7 * 2 _("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_) . ) ) _(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_) ? , : _("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_) 6 + 1 _(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_) "$"#,##0_);\(\ "$"#,##0\ \) % "$"#,##0_);[Red]\(\ "$"#,##0\ \) & ! "$"#,##0.00_);\(\ "$"#,##0.00\ \) + & "$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\(\ "$"#,##0.00\ \) ? : _("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(\ #,##0\ \);_("$"* "-"_);_(\ @_ \) 6 1 _(* #,##0_);_(* \(\ #,##0\ \);_(* "-"_);_(\ @_ \) G B _("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(\ #,##0.00\ \);_("$"* "-"??_);_(\ @_ \) > 9 _(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(\ #,##0.00\ \);_(* "-"??_);_(\ @_ \) 0.0%
mm/dd/yyyy mmm\ d\,\ yyyy\ h:mm\ AM/PM
ff P P ` a X T T # X # X X L L P X ( P # X X X # X P | | N `;}A }
0.00\ \) ef @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) ef @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) ef @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) ef @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) ef @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) ef @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) L @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) L @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) L @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) L @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) L @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) L @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}A }
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}A } !
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}A } "
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } #
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } $
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } %
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } &
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } '
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } (
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\} } )
} 0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\
} } *
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\ ??? ??? ???
??? }- } /
0.00\ \) }A } 0
a 0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } 1
0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } 2
0.00\ \) ? @_ \)_(\}A } 3
0.00\ \) 23 @_ \)_(\}- } 4
0.00\ \) } } 5
??v0.00\ \) ̙@_ \)_(\
}A } 6
} 0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}A } 7
e 0.00\ \) @_ \)_(\}x } 8 0.00\ \) @_
} } 9
???0.00\ \) @_ ??? ???
???
??? }- } ;
0.00\ \) }U } <
0.00\ \) @_ }- } =
0.00\ \)
20% - Accent1M
2 0 % - A c c e n t 1 ef %
20% - Accent2M "
2 0 % - A c c e n t 2 ef %
20% - Accent3M &
2 0 % - A c c e n t 3 ef %
20% - Accent4M *
2 0 % - A c c e n t 4 ef %
20% - Accent5M .
2 0 % - A c c e n t 5 ef %
20% - Accent6M 2
2 0 % - A c c e n t 6 ef %
40% - Accent1M
4 0 % - A c c e n t 1 L %
40% - Accent2M #
4 0 % - A c c e n t 2 L渷 %
40% - Accent3M '
4 0 % - A c c e n t 3 L %
40% - Accent4M +
4 0 % - A c c e n t 4 L %
40% - Accent5M /
4 0 % - A c c e n t 5 L %
40% - Accent6M 3
4 0 % - A c c e n t 6 Lմ %
60% - Accent1M
6 0 % - A c c e n t 1 23 %
60% - Accent2M $
6 0 % - A c c e n t 2 23ږ %
60% - Accent3M (
6 0 % - A c c e n t 3 23כ %
60% - Accent4M ,
6 0 % - A c c e n t 4 23 %
60% - Accent5M 0
6 0 % - A c c e n t 5 23 % !
60% - Accent6M 4
6 0 % - A c c e n t 6 23 % " Accent1A A c c e n t 1 O % # Accent2A ! A c c e n t 2 PM % $ Accent3A % A c c e n t 3 Y % % Accent4A ) A c c e n t 4 d % & Accent5A - A c c e n t 5 K % ' Accent6A 1 A c c e n t 6 F % ( Bad9 B a d % ) Calculation C a l c u l a t i o n } % *
Check Cell
C h e c k C e l l % ??? ??? ??? ??? + C o m m a ,( C o m m a [ 0 ] -& C u r r e n c y .. C u r r e n c y [ 0 ] / Explanatory TextG 5 E x p l a n a t o r y T e x t % 0 Good; G o o d a % 1 Heading 1G H e a d i n g 1 I}% O 2 Heading 2G H e a d i n g 2 I}% ? 3 Heading 3G H e a d i n g 3 I}% 23 4 Heading 49 H e a d i n g 4 I}%
5 Inputu I n p u t ̙ ??v% 6 Linked CellK L i n k e d C e l l } % 7 NeutralA N e u t r a l e % " N o r m a l 8 Noteb
N o t e 9 Outputw O u t p u t ???% ??? ??? ??? ??? :$ P e r c e n t
; Title1 T i t l e I}%
< TotalM T o t a l % O O = Warning Text? W a r n i n g T e x t % X T a b l e S t y l e M e d i u m 9 P i v o t S t y l e L i g h t 1 6 8 3f f f f ̙ ̙ 3f 3 f ff 3f 3f 3 33 3 3f 33 333 \ `
Question 1 >
Question 2
Question 3 n0
Question 4 BC
Question 5 X
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8 ą
Question 9 Question 10
2 f f @ @ P )
3 A @ @
Y # 0 OGIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees Poll. How long have you worked in your organization? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Less than 1 year 1 year to less than 3 years 3 years to 5 years More than 5 years answered question skipped questionA What is your role within the FOIA process? (Check all that apply) FOIA Public Liaison! FOIA Principal Office Coordinator FOIA Processor Other (Please explain) Number
Response Date
Categories Policy Lead7 FOIA Officer primarily responsible for all FOIA duties. FOIA Analyst assiting AttorneysI w o r k i n t h e I n i t i a l D e n i a l A u t h o r i t i e s O f f i c e a t a n A r m y 4 - S t a r C o m m a n d . T h i s i s a n i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d a s o n e o f t h e s e l e c t i o n b u t t o n s a s i t i s t h e I D A t h a t d e n i e s a f e e c a t e g o r y c l a i m b y a r e q u e s t e r ; d e n i e s a r e q u e s t f o r a w a i v e r o r r e d u c t i o n o f f e e s , r e v i e w s f e e e s t i m a t e s , a n d d e n i e s e x p e d i t e d p r o c e s s i n g . I f y o u a r e n t i n t h e I D A o f f i c e y o u m a y n o t b e a w a r e o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f f e e c a t e g o r i e s a n d a s s e s s i n g f e e s .
I d l i k e t o d o a s h o u t o u t t o t h e F O I A o f f i c e r s w h o m a k e g r e a t e f f o r t t o n o t i f y m e o f b u r d e n s o m e r e q u e s t s ( w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e f r a m e ) , s o w e c a n w o r k t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r e q u e s t e r t o n a r r o w o r m o d i f y t h e r e q u e s t t o m a k e i t r e a s o n a b l e . T h a n k Y O U ! !
Bureau FOIA Officer* branch chief of foi staff in an FDA Center RSC@ Regional FOIA Coordinator Region 4 DOI Fish and Wildlife Service Wing FOIA Program Manager Installation FOIA ManagerI subject-matter expert/reviewer for SAF/AAII, SAF/PA, and other AF offices I work for a Major Command responsible for overseeing base FOIA programs and providing policy as well as processing FOIA requests. MAJCOM FOIA Manager FOIA Manager( Acting FOIA Principal Office Coordinator Regional FOIA Liaison in SW US.t I log requests into FMS2, assist in assigning and tracking and delivering requested documents in the form requested.: Manages Disclosure program including FOIA responsibilities FOIA Officer Department FOIA Officerf Chief FOIA/PA Officer! Government Information Specialist Branch Chief FOIA Analyst Deputy FOIA Officer Our FOIA program is evolving so my role has been changing. In the past year I have been involved in all aspects of the FOIA process but will probably settle into more of a FOIA processor role in the near future. Director and FOIA Officer Director Chief, FOIA Officer, all functions including processing, policy, procedure development, training, managing program within the agency.
FOIA Attorney Paralegal Specialist: have been processing FOIAs for 20 years for other agencies FOIA reviewer.. FOIA Analyst/Government Information Specialist Supervisory FOIA Specialist" Contract Lead for the FOIA Program FOIA Senior Reviewer Unit FOIA Representative Senior Reviewer8 Alternate FOIA Officer and Alternate FOIA Public Liaison
Supervisor FOIA Coordinator Senior reviewer of documents for declassification and release. I am usually not involved in the search for documents nor in application of fees.P I have over 11 years in FOIA, Last office processed over 4,000 requests annually2 Consultation, Referrals and Litigation coordinator FOIA counsel FOIA Attorney (legal review)o Except for our FOIA Public Liaison, I'm the entire FOIA staff. "Processor" doesn't really seem to cover it. :-) Chief FOIA Officern FOIA Officer and legal review/research
Handle requests for four different organizations on the installation. NA= Supervisory Gov't Information Specialist (Disclosure Officer)- Attorney in office processing FOIA requests. FOIA Program Manager Supervisor of FOIA Processors FOIA trainer
FOIA Reviewer Technical Assistant* FOIA Attorney & adviser to FOIA ProcessorsL First contact for FOIA requests and administrative duties pertaining to FOIA Initial Denial Authority Gov't. Information Specialist Backup FOIA Processor FOIA and Privacy Act specialist; Senior Leader responsible for operations of the FOIA branch FOIA Assistant All of the Above, Serve as the FOIA expert for my organization OAA Supervise Primary FOIA Officerq Regional FOIA Liaison - process and respond to requests, provide guidance, oversight, and training to the region.y I coordinate all FOIA work for my agency. However, that includes processing, intake, liaison, oversee others' work, etc. I am the FOIA Officer. FOIA attorney Central Office FOIA OfficerA Associate General Counsel. Processing FOIAs is one of my duties. program8 How many requests does your organization receive a year? 1 2 4 2 5 5 0 5 1 9 9 1 0 0 2 5 0 2 5 1 4 9 9 5 0 0 9 9 9 1 0 0 0 2 , 9 9 9
Over 3,000 O n a v e r a g e , h o w m u c h t i m e d o y o u s p e n d e a c h w e e k r e v i e w i n g f e e r e l a t e d i s s u e s ( e . g . p l a c e m e n t i n r e q u e s t e r f e e c a t e g o r y , p r o v i d i n g f e e e s t i m a t e s , c o l l e c t i n g f e e s , a d j u d i c a t i n g f e e w a i v e r s , e t c . ) ? Less than one hour 1 3 h o u r s 3 6 h o u r s 10 hours or mored W h a t i s t h e e s t i m a t e d p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r a g e n c y s F O I A r e q u e s t s t h a t r e s u l t i n t h e c h a r g i n g o f f e e s ? 0 9 1 0 2 0 2 1 3 1 3 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 5 4 6 4 6 5 7 6 7 7 8 7 8 8 1 0 0 H Do you see any advantages and/or disadvantages to eliminating FOIA fees? Yes No Please explain:< Eliminating fees may result in an increase of FOIA requests.X The disadvantage of eliminating fees would eliminate disincentive to frivolous requests.f If we eliminate the FOIA fees, requester will be submitting requests for large amounts of information. Fees and processing time are the only tools available to a FOIA office to persuade requesters to target the records they actually seek. This focus, which increases efficiency and customer satisfaction, is to be distinguished from discouraging requests.
For example, a competitor may be interested in the terms of a loan OPIC provided to Acme Co., but not knowing any better, that competitor requests "All records relating to Acme Co." Acme Co. has two loans, and all records related to these projects, including e-mails, results in tens of thousands of records. Discussing with the requester what they are really seeking, the fees they are willing to pay for it, and the time they are willing to wait to get it will often result in a more targeted FOIA request. A request for "The Loan Agreement between OPIC and Acme for a $20M loan in 2012, including any amendments." is a request that is both easier for the agency to process and can provide the requester with the information sought.i The requester should have some accountability for receiving documents; especially on voluminous requests.u Researching is time consuming and providing material should be assocaited with a charge, so I encourge charging fees If there were not any fees associated with FOIA request than there would be many more FOIA's submitted by requesters causing alot of time being spent working on FOIA and there are other duties that require attention.; Advantage:
There would be no more fee categories and it would make it fairer, since the fee solely depends on the < speed of the office processing the request.
Disadvantage:
People are more likely to place FOIA requests and ask for more information since they no longer have to worry about fees accrued.
Fees help ensure that agencies are not forced to devote large amounts of resources to projects that are only of minor interest to outside parties.> Significant staff resources are used to process FOIA requests.I s e e o n l y d i s a d v a n t a g e s t o e l i m i n a t e d F O I A f e e s .
I A W D O D 5 4 0 0 . 7 - R , C 6 . 1 . 5 . 1 . F e e s m a y n o t b e u s e d t o d i s c o u r a g e r e q u e s t e r s . H o w e v e r , f e e s a l l o w F O I A o f f i c e r s , a s p u b l i c s e r v a n t s , t o n o t i f y a r e q u e s t e r a b o u t h o w m a n y h o u r s ( a n d t h e r e f o r e h o w m a n y d o l l a r s ) i t w i l l t a k e t o s e a r c h f o r t h e r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t s . O f t e n t h e r e i s n t p u b l i c c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e e f f o r t e x p e n d e d u n t i l t h e r e i s a d o l l a r c o s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a r e q u e s t . F O I A f e e s a l l o w u s t o b a l a n c e w h a t i s a r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t t o b e c o m p l e t e d i n a r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t o f t i m e , a n d a l l o w s u s t o b e g o o d s t e w a r d s o f G o v e r n m e n t r e s o u r c e s b y p r o p e r l y a s s e s s i n g f e e . B y l a w . R e q u e s t e r s m a y c h o o s e t o a p p e a l i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i f t h e y b e l i e v e t h e m t o b e e r r o n e o u s . I d o n t r e c a l l e v e r h a v i n g a r e q u e s t e r a p p e a l a n i n i t i a l f e e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , w h i c h m e a n s t h a t t h e a s s e s s i n g w o r k s .
E x a m p l e : I h a v e w r i t t e n a m i l l i o n d o l l a r f e e e s t i m a t e , a r e q u e s t w h e r e s e a r c h a n d r e v i e w w o u l d t a k e 1 2 m a n y e a r s t o p r o c e s s . T h r o u g h c o m m u n i c a t i n g t h e s e a r c h a n d r e v i e w f e e t i m e s w i t h t h e r e q u e s t e r o v e r a c o u p l e o f i t e r a t i o n s , t h a t m i l l i o n d o l l a r r e q u e s t b e c a m e a t w o t h o u s a n d d o l l a r f e e r e q u e s t .
I n s o m e c a s e s , i f f e e s w e r e e l i m i n a t e d ( o r c h a n g e d t o n o m i n a l f l a t f e e ) , i t w o u l d r e m o v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o w o r k w i t h r e q u e s t e r s t o c l a r i f y a n d n a r r o w t h e i r r e q u e s t . T h e r e i s a s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e o f r e q u e s t e r s t h a t m a k e u n r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t s a n d a r e n o t w i l l i n g t o n a r r o w o r m o d i f y t h e m e v e n w h e n t h e F O I A p r o c e s s a n d t i m e l i n e h a s b e e n e x p l a i n e d t o t h e m . I f f e e s w e r e e l i m i n a t e t h o s e u n r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o b e p r o c e s s e d , w h i c h i n t u r n d e n i e s o t h e r r e q u e s t e r s w h o h a v e r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t s f a s t e r p r o c e s s i n g ( d u e t o m a n p o w e r l i m i t a t i o n s ) .
It is extremely rare that we charge fees, but responding to waiver requests and tracking processing time to determine the amount of fees takes away time that could be used to process the requests. More requesters will submit requests for more voluminous numbers of records which will seriously impact an agencies' ability to respond to requests ;in a timely fashion. As it is some requesters who are in litigation with an agency use the FOIA as an end run around discovery, and as a litigation strategy t undercut an agency's ability to prosecute its case.
.
Agencies with larger FOIA receipts would need to specific appropriations of fund to cover the costs the agency expends processing requests. For example, one request can generate over 11,000 paper records. The requester chooses to receive the records in an electronic format. The cost to the agency to scan the records to a thumb drive is over $2,000. The agency would have to absorb the cost.
I think it would be disadvantageous if the fees were to be dropped. While the fee schedule is very cumbersome, I believe it helps to deter some from submitting outrageous requests. N/AE The money doesn't come back to the agency, not providing any benefit. I think that removing fees would disadvantage the agency and those of us who must respond to them and enable requestors to make requests that take time without having the responsibility of determining how important receiving the information is to them if required to pay for it.E Do not eliminate fees. A lot of time is spent searching for records. Disadvantages - need to keep FOIA fees so that "frequent flyers" are charged for the time they cause the FOIA office to search for their lengthy requests. Advantage - No more estimating processing fees for docs we haven't even collected yet.
Disadvantages - Requester's don't have the potential of fees, if they can't justify a fee waiver, to encourage them to rescope their requests.- Charging fees discourages frivolous requests.l Most of the FOIAs that are high cost are from non-profit organizations who usually qualify for a fee waiver. These organizations ask for everything and anything under the sun. The general public pays for fees over $50.00 preventing some individuals from being able to access records. Having a flat rate seems reasonable. Costs are being recovered on all FOIAs. serious disadvantage--if there were no fees, commercial requestors would likley make more broad request and/or not choose to limit their requests to a reasonable volume or focus. The fees are necessary as it creates more fairness to all requestors, by helping allow processing of more reasonable requests and avoid fising expeditions and allowing more responses to more requestors rather than allowing very large and unreasonable requests to use all our time and resource. Please do not eliminate foia fees I think fee elimination will encourage repeated customers to abuse gov't funds and result in delaying the FOIA process. If customers have to pay they evaluate the value of their requests.} Many FOIA requests that we receive come from agency that qualify for Fee waivers, therefore we hardly ever charge FOIA fees
Eliminating fees for voluminous cases would provide requesters the expectation that they could ask for anything and the case would have to be processed regardless. Even if the case would case a work-stoppage as some cases cause at the present time. This question is very difficult for us to answer. We are only looking at the effort in processing fees from a FOIA Officer's viewpoint. In other words, if we eliminate the step of a DD Form 2086 and having to in-put everything, our job is a little easier; however, we have no idea how fees are then a benefit or a disadvantage to the Government. Our fees collection is so minimal that it makes very little difference in our work. the couple times I have collected fees - I was actually just a middleman. I received the member's personal check and turned it over to the finance office for processing.
g The fee categories should remain as they are. Processing a request takes man-hours that can be costly.g FOIA fees are required by statute and any decision to eliminate them would be a Congressional decision.y Advantage is not constantly re issuing invoices... Disadvantage< , I think FOIA would become overly inflated by requesters.y Advantage: no form 2086 to fill out.
Disadvantage: increase # of requests; size, scope and cost to government/tax payer.E Eliminating fees would drastically overload our requests and backlog.& I still think fees should be charged. the absence of fees currently does not affect the majority of FOIA processing. If fees were eliminate, this would decrease one step of billing and tracking the invoice For the most part we at the Wing level waiver fees because they are less than $25. But with all the work that goes into some of the larger request I think fee should be required. l No advantage since we still have to provide total costs in the annual report whether or not we collect fees.k For simple FOIA requests, fees could be eliminated.
For complex FOIAs, fees should be part of the process. Most responses are electronically; 65% of cases are high volumes, so timeline not met (waived fees), and 35% are Privacy info request.Y I can see both sides of this. The problem is that the agencies doing the search, don't fully understand the requirements and think it is a waste of time. FOIA managers have to do a better job clarifying the request and educating/training the OPRs. Requesters might take full advantage of paying no fees. Time limits need to be adjusted also.` Advantage: we do not collect that much money at our base - it would eliminate the delinquencies.V Handling of requests via electronic means cuts down on paper costs, research time, etc difficulty in ascertaining appropriate fees based on hours and pay grades, confusion about methods of payment and getting payment to the right person/office., I have mixed feelings for the pros and cons.P We get very few 'commercial' reqeuesats (I don't recall ever haveing one). Media fees are related to copies of documents, and with everything going electronic now, this fee seems redundant. Also there is the time involved in everyone tracking/documenting their time on the 2086, etc., and the time compliling those numbers into eFOIA. OPRs are inconsistent with their time estimates. Since most of our FOIAs are now provided in electronic format very few end up with fees associated. ^ Eliminating FOIA fees would increase the number of FOIA request. FOIA backlog would increase. Disadvantage-provides requestors with more incentives to submit overly burdensome requests for voluminious amounts of records. Suspect more "fishing" requests will be receievd. Advantage of fees-holds requestors responsible for receieving requested information Disadvantage: no discouragement of profligate requesters who would flood the system and increase backlogs, not to mention crowding out one-time requesters (e. g., students)| The requester would not have to worry about being charged fees and/or providing, most times, long drawn-out justification(s) why they should not be charged fees. Most assuredly it save the FOIA managers a significant amount of time working FOIA fee issues within their respective area(s) which more than likely solve our backlog issues or at least some them (in my opinion). In addition, this is the Year 2015, whereas in most cases, with our current electronics of providing a much faster process of retrieving records and the most preferred method of providing our valued customer a response in an electronic format, the cost is or should be almost negligible to our customer. Last but not least, is our forward wording for our process "Freedom"; hence, it should be provided "Free!" Thanks for allowing me to comment on an issue that has been stuck in my side for the longest time!! Z Don't have to go back to requester regarding fees plus don't have to deal with fee waivers I believe you should have to pay, because the government is already lenient on the first 100 pages and 2 hours of free search service. In our command, we don't spend a lot of time on fees. The hardest issue sometimes is determining the category of the requester because a requester sometimes tries to claim a category to which they don't fit just to avoid fees.
Save time. Fees must be kept since OPRs are taking their time to process each request when their are plenty of other workload items they could be completing... I think charging processing fees help to keep the requesters somewhat grounded and to work with the RCS/SME/OPR in narrowing scope, etc.d Nearly every FOIA I process is granted a fee waiver, so eliminating FOIA fees won't have any effect. Our number of requests would increase exponentially if we quit charging fees. We process most of our requests outside the FOIA system, but charge the requester according to FOIA standards. The cost of calculating, documenting, billing, collecting, and tracking down delinquent requesters most likely outweighs whatever advantage there is for charging fees. Taxpayers already pay too much for frequent requesters, particularly for historical documents. Fees should be increased for other category requesters Advantages-just release it cause it causes extra time and work. Fighting with requestors regarding fee's is too time consuming and better handled if there weren't any fee's. "Who keeps track of the cost of keeping track of the costs?" I realize that without charging something, there are those who would abuse the FOIA process to harass government agencies even more than they do now. But, the current process gets in the way of just providing the information, which should be our first priority. The ˹ֳ charges a flat rate of $50 for records, if they find them, regardless of the size/number of pages. I believe that FOIA fees should not be eliminated since it's balances out a genuine interest in the information received and fishing expeditions. If there is real value in the information requested, then a requester is more inclined to invest $ to receive it. I think having the fee schedules helps to encourage requesters to narrow the scope of their requests. Many requesters are willing to work with us if fees come into play to help reduce their costs. Advantages: eliminates inordinate amount of time on so little amount. Processing is already complicated enough if you use the FM2 system-that alone is a nightmare! FOIA fees incentivize requesters to submit requests that include a scope which is specific and detailed. Without FOIA fees, requesters would likely submit exceptionally broad requests in order to cast the widest net possible for capturing the records that they are seeking. 0 Eliminating FOIA fees would be a disadvantage. Yes for routine FOIA's, but large request are so time consuming that a real cost is incurred. So for attorneys for instance using FOIA to get around discovery, with hundreds of documents and hours of processing, a fee charge is totally appropriate. There requests that require an enormous amount of research and duplication plus time for reviewing from program offices that are already short staffed.h FOIA fees are an important control on overly broad requests for information. The fact that a requester must pay a small price for extensive document "fishing expeditions" saves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of FTEs that would be spent on search and review efforts on documents irrelevant to the requester's intent that get caught up in overly broad requests. DO NOT eliminate. Being able to charge fees often helps us narrow the scope of overburdensome requests thus improving the overall efficiency of the FOIA operation. Requesters with reasonable sized document requests are often disadvantaged by those requesting massive document productions.9 The only advantage is probably not having to store files.W The inability to charge fees puts us in a position where there is no way to negotiate with the requester. What stops a requester from coming in with 100 requests in one month? When requesters realize that there will be a fee, even a nominal fee, they will be less apt to bombard the system with several requests. We will likely get less requests and more succinct requests with the ability to charge fees. Right now, even the inability to charg< e fees after the 20-day deadline is killing us, especially since having a backlog or requests doesn't fall within the "unusual circumstances" criteria. The charging of fees should cause many requesters to be specific about the information they request. The majority of my work does not have fees assessed, primarily because I process many media requests. The disadvantage would be 3rd party requesters might increase their requests for voluminous documents. The advantage would be a quicker process for those who handle mostly 3rd party FOIA requests.n While fees theoretically provide a means to reduce the financial burden on the agency for large requests, recouping fees happens so infrequently, that 1) the search/reproduction burden typically is more than the fees would recoup and 2) in many instances, the administrative burden of assessing/processing fees is itself greater than any amount that may be recouped. The fees must kept. This is one of the ways to talk the FOIA requestors into narrowing the scope. News/media pays for nothing and those are the ones that say that they want "any and all" records - even if that "any and all" numbers in 10-15 boxes of records. The individuals also don't pay much and they can be very unrealistic and hard to work with. The commercial entities that have to pay are much better about narrowing the scope since they don't want to pay for boxes and boxes of records. G The advantage of the FOIA fees is it allows agencies to charge for time spent searching and reviewing voluminous amounts of documents; once the requester is informed of the fees associated with processing a voluminous amount of requests, the requester will narrow his/her request so as to pay a lesser amount for the documents.* In my experience, we've not charged anyoneg Eliminating fees could cause us disadvantages by increasing the scope and volume of material requeted. No ability to negotiate. Instructions are pretty clear when and when not fees should be charged. We have received not complaints regarding fees being charged. By charging fees we force the requesting community to think about what they actually want (and how much they actually want it).I fees should be charged to moderate repeat requests and excessive requests The advantage is that it could eliminate processing time, but the disadvantage is that those outside of the foia office could spend large amounts of time to search and prepare the documents at no cost to the agency.
Time is moneyJ to discourage the requester from asking for the sun, stars and the moon. 0 Eliminating FOIA fees will same processing time. Both! Eliminate fees altogether due to the availability of information is more accessible via data bases and usually when a fee is charged it is appealed and usually reversed at a higher level. Do not eliminate fees. We get enormously, time-consuming FOIA requests on a department-wide level. Asking for fees helps balance the seriousenss of the task. Disadvantage, requesters typically refuse to narrow the scope, but rather want a voluminous amount of information (this hurts agencies with small staff like ours), especially media. Disadvantage: The elimination of FOIA fees would have a direct impact on the number of requests received. Without fees my organization would be overun by requests without the staff to process the requests.
e The time personnel spend on searching and reviewing documents should be compensated for the employee.{ Eliminating FOIA fees would encourage a small, but active, group of requesters to begin making multiple voluminous requestso Fees should not be eliminated because when there are fees requesters narrow down the scope of the FOIA request.H Disadvantage-Eliminating fees increases the number of request an agency will receive in a year, which in turn increases the manpower resources required to expend on each request to search for records. The advantage to having FOIA fees is that it allocates monies that are funneled back to Treasury for miscellaneous allocations.k Yes. less paper work. faster service. Less communication and negotiation between requester and FOIA Office.F I believe that fees should be charged for commercial entities and for anyone who chooses to receive records in hard copy, rather than electronic format. Paper reproduction costs a lot and agencies never recover those costs. Also, commercial entities should not be able to use federal info for FREE in order for their own gain. There are no restrictions on scope if costs do not bring the reality of constraining labor resources to search and review a multitude of voluminous records.9 In my region fees are collected in limited circumstances. All requesters (including media) should pay for every minute, piece of paper, CD, etc. it costs to respond to a FOIA request no matter how long it takes the agency to respond. As a tax payer, I don't want one cent of my tax dollar spent on providing anything for free to a FOIA requester.g We only collect a small fraction of what it actually costs to do FOIA. Juice is not worth the squeeze.K Disadvantage in that it can help cut down on large and unnecessary request.T Advantages to eliminating fees: less time spent on estimating fees and writing/responding to letters. Cost of billing and receiving fees.
Disadvantage: fee estimates do demonstrate to the requester that there is a cost to supplying public records and helps focus the request to what is really needed rather than a more shotgun approach. ) Eliminating FOIA fees would be detrimental to the Service. The amount of time away from assigned duties can be extensive for responding to Commercial entities. If no fees were charged commercial entities would increase their FOIA requests taking employees away from the mission of the Service. y Fee assessment is time-intensive. Fee elimination should analysts to focus on disclosure analysis of responsive records.} Eliminating the fees will substantially increase FOIA workload; fees are one of the ways to keep "serial" requsters in check. Eliminating fees would leave us vulnerable to very broad and voluminous requests since requesters could ask for anything without any cost. Advantage - no need to make fee waiver determinations or track hours
Disadvantage - the government does not get reimbursed for the time spent searching/reviewing records or for duplication of records Most legal offices, medical organizations and businesses charge a fee for a variety of services they provide to include research time, allocated resources and expended supplies. It seems that many requests are from attorneys looking for information for litigation - either against FWS or another entity. That's different than the public getting information, and I think fees should be charged. Some FOIAs take very large amounts of staff time to complete. This also diverts staff from performing mission critical duties. The possibility of fees may reduce the number of non-substantive FOIA requests - ie, some student requests. It does add some extra burden on our part and delays responses while determining fees, but it makes total sense for those with large requests that aren't in exempt categories to have to pay for the information.? If there were no fees, foia request would dramatically increase Fees are one of the few limitations on how much a requester asks for. We already have to respond to requests that are far too large and complicated to answer within statutory time limits.n I see disadvantages to eliminating the fees. It can be used as a tool for the requestor's to narrow the scope+ Most our FOIAs are below cost requirements.d increase in volume of records requested that will result in additional processing delays, litigation Advantages - eliminating administrative burden
Disadvantages - requesters can bog an agency down with requests that would otherwise be limited due to fees or narrowing in scope Eliminating FOIA fees would result in more FOIA requests being filed when requesters are seeking documents for commercial reasons. Also, these types of requests are often litigious and time-consuming.B Advantages - co< llection of some monies for the processing of requests on behalf of the government.
Disadvantages - antithesis to the Open Government policy in which information should be open and available to all. Charging fees to requesters who can't really afford it. Difficulty assessing some requester fee category.n If fees are eliminated, requestors will likely request significantly more information than they actually need. disadvantage: fees help reduce "marketing" requests (for one). further, the agency should have an opp to recoup the value of time "spent" to respond while the work we're hired to do is neglected.2 An agency could be overcome with frivious request.} There are certainly some advantages and some disadvantages to eliminating fees.
Doing away with fees would mean that we wouldn't need to spend time ruling on fee waivers/fee categorization issues or billing/collecting from requesters.
However, I believe this disadvantages outweigh the advantages. First, unsophisticated requesters often make very broad requests - for example, seeking all records related to a particular topic, or all e-mails from a particular domain. A very useful tool in getting requesters to narrow these requests is fees - requesters often agree to a more refined scope when the alternative is thousands of dollars in fees.
Second, eliminating fees doesn't eliminate the costs of processing FOIA requests. Instead, those costs would just be shifted from the person making the requester to the taxpayers who now have to cover those costs through tax revenues.5 The fees are an important aspect of processing FOIAs.[ Processing fees adds to the processing time but the collected fees don't cover that cost. @ more commercial requests for contracts that involve alot of time2 It will eliminate the extra process of wait time. Prospect of paying fees provides agencies leverage when requests result in voluminous records and gives requesters reason for narrowing scope of request. Advantage - Get rid of FOIA fees, government documents are public documents. For most FOIA processors, processing FOIA requests is their main job. Eliminating fees could help streamline the process by eliminating the need to provide fee estimates and calculate fees due. However, it could encourage broader requests and more numerous requests if fees are eliminated. Most requests I see are no-fee requests. If we keep fees to the $25 limit many requesters place, the processing costs would (almost) offset any income from the fees. Fees are a waste of time as currently implemented. Because most of the requests are processed after the 20 days, requesters are not charged most of the time. The language is put in the perfected letter, but the reimbursement does not occur most of the time. It would help generate more FOIA requests and thus boost the FOIA backlog. FOIA is already a huge subsidy to requesters especially those that get the service for practically free.M Our agency doesn't charge fees if the records are sent electronically (even if original versions are in paper). More responses are being sent electronically, so we will be charging less fees anyway. We also have requesters who never pay after they recieve the records, so that issue would be eliminated if we no longer charge fees.i Fees are sometimes helpful as a tool in convincing a requester to narrow very open ended search requests.w I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for the FOIA processes. Also, the fees do not benefit the Agency FOIA Unit. SIG requestes often require a great deal of search time. Many requests result in over 40 hours of search time. We should continue to charge fees to offset the time spent on these extensive and time consuming requests.. the CPSC already waives most of the FOIA fees.x I would say that 98% of my requests are not fee related so I see an advantage to eliminating the fee as inconsequential M charging fees is very cumbersome due to the paperwork involved with ASC in FS M y a g e n c y u s e s f e e s t o l i m i t t h e n u m b e r o f " f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n s . T h e t i m e i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e t y p e s o f r e q u e s t p a l e s i n c o m p a r i s o n t o t h e t i m e r e v i e w i n g f e e - r e l a t e d i s s u e s . Advantage: Adjudicating/charging/collecting fees adds more cost than we generally collect.
Disadvantage: Fees are one way of controlling professional requesters.r I don't see much point to FOIA fees except in the case of commercial requesters. In my experience, the commercial category is the only case in which the amount of fees collected is worth the administrative burden of fee processing. We have had only occasional instances of a non-commercial requester withdrawing or de-scoping a request because of search fee estimates.w I think that ALL FOIA requesters, regardless of category, should be charged the full cost of processing their requests.y Yes, because we deal with high volume and complex issues that take our staff many hours to review/search and photcopying. If you eliminated they will ask for everything possible of receiving. I noted if their are charges they think twice about requesting the info and most cancel their request because they don't want to pay. Nearly all responsive records we find are electronic. There is little actual search time required to find these documents. I also provide nearly all requesters with electronic responsive documents which eliminates the costs associated with copying and mailing. The disadvantage to eliminating fees is that the requester will no longer have "skin in the game" even if it is just the potential for having to pay. The number of requests will likely increase significantly if there is no impact on the requester.B We rarely charge fees and any fees we would charge are so minimal Fees help keep the requests reasonable.
Otherwise, requesters would no incentive to describe the scope of their requests to other than all documents & records. Save work hours Possible disadvantages. Requester Advantages - they would not have to worry if they could afford the fees or not.
Disadvantages - none.
FOIA Employees Advantages - We could spend more time on processing the requests. If fees were given back to the agency that processed the request, the time spent would turn into an advantage.
Disadvantages - no fees might mean a huge jump in requests, so we would need more FOIA staff.
N Eliminating would save time and effort. To much time spent on determination. If no fees were charged, processing times may increase since individuals may not narrow requests. Advantages would be less appeals for individuals appealing the type of requester they have been categorized as and time spent totaling fees due. There are several resources utilized in the FOIA Fee Process, so fees should be collected. Don't agree with Treasury receiving the Fee money should go to each agency when the agencies personnel is doing all of the work. Some requests are not serious - extremely broad, or clearly irrelevant to our agency, or clearly trivial, or "fishing expeditions" for something newsworthy to report. But they still require processing. A moderate fee would discourage such unreasonable requests. There is no need to charge the public for our services. They already pay or wages. We are "client centered'...right? Waste of Government time and resources. Number of requests requiring fees is minimal. However, processing in Army system is difficult and usually not worth the effort. Disadvantage would be requesters may tend to ask for more broad and voluminous records if there are no fees involved. As such, if no more resources are dedicated, this could impact processing times, as well as records searches and review times.L fees can faciltate negotiations that reduce the scope of burdensome requests_ Currently between the FOIA and current Agency guidance it is nearly impossible to charge a fee. Disadvantage: everyone will request everything under the sun without any incentive to narrow the FOIA request based on fees and with< out consideration that it may take hundreds of hours to process a voluminous FOIA request. An advantage is to eliminate the ambiguiity for FOIA Officers and bureaus of fee category evaluation and/or qualification for fee waivers. Since a request would presumably be perfected in most cases immediately, we would not need to compile fee estimates and could begin to search more quickly. However, eliminating fees must be offset by requiring requesters to make very specific document requests. Otherwise requesters would have no reason to limit the request's scope. Disadvantages because the negotiation of scope of the request would virtually be eliminated without fees. Requests would likely be more voluminous. Fees for large requests tend to get requesters more focused on the information they are really looking for instead of asking for everything and the kitchen sink.? Advantage - The most confusing part of the FOIA process for some people. Eliminating this will reduce confusion and man hours spent on it.
Disadvantage - The people who make money off of selling FOIA information will no longer have to pay to receive information. Could we make this a flat fee for all requesters? Requesters who fall within the free period can use the information requested to make money. But if you are a commercial requester, you are charged from the beginning. Advantage is saving manhours in adjudication and collection; disadvantage places financial burden on gov't for loss of resources (paper, cds, computer space) We are finally trying to get FOIA processors to to THEIR JOB and charge FEES for a service rendered to commercial requestors for a CHARGE as it should be, and you have the nerve to ask this question? U I see a disadvantage to eliminating FOIA fees, as it would further increase requests. I see too many frivolous requests for acquisition documents made by individuals and companies who do not understand the amount of search and review time required to answer their questions. These are often requests by companies or their attorneys for copies of contracts. [ too many requesters are given fee waivers -- and too much time is spent considering waiversT Advantage: save time negotiating
Disadvantage: Requesters will ask for everything) We rarely charge fees, maybe once a year. Disadvantage - Sometimes the work is huge to pull together the files requested and the time spent takes you away from the job you are assigned too. Copies and time are taxpayers monies, someone needs to get paid for doing that extra work.
Advantages, many time agencies are backlogged with request, if the requester does not get the information in the reasonable time frame they should not have to pay.
M To discourage the voluminous amounts of pages requested on one FOIA request
Eliminating FOIA fees would be an advantage to the requester. There are instances when a requester may be asked to narrow their request to produce a more affordable fee structure for their response.~ Time saved in tracking fees when probably no agency captures 100% their time. I know in my agency that most FOIA officers don't bother with fees because it is too much of a bother. But this is not fair to those requesters who deal with an experienced FOIA Officer who does make the effort and charges (properly) fees. Time saved in advising junior personnel in how/why to grant or deny a fee waiver. FOIA is not a law designed to collect revenues for the USG so why waste federal employees' time? Although I agree that commercial requesters should pay fees; whether using the same formula or something new but everyone else - free. see below Advanatge is not having to process actions for little to no cost Disavantage is that most commands are not staffed to handle large document requests like we get for contracting actions therefore FOIA actions become fishing expeditions which eat up a lot of government resources. Though fees are not to be a deterent to releasing the information a requester is most likely to scope the request in a more narrow fashion if they know they will be required to pay thousands of dollars to receive the informationE I don't think we should eliminate fees. Currently, requests are extremely complex and requesters are asking for more information. Fees are the only way agencies have to narrow the scope and complexity of requests. As it is, the media is usually not charged. I also think if there were no fees, backlogs would be enormous. Since we are a reimbursable organization who does not get to keep fees, we essentially lose all time (i.e., manpower) spent assessing, collecting, evaluating fee issues. I see disadvantages as commercial requesters will take advantage of the opportunity to request documents at will. Therefore, it will create more requests to support the companies business.D Research manhours should be payed by the requestor not the taxpayer. If fees were eliminated it would reduce the impetus on the Requester community to pinpoint the information they actually want/need because there is no cost to them for obtaining superfluous or unnecessary records.r This would cut down on fee related appeals; however, I do feel there should be a charge for providing the records.? Fees give a cost factor which limits the scope of some request.r Disadvantage, because eliminating fees would take away the organizations ability to negotiate with the requester. FOIA Fee's would stop certain people from making the same requests just worded in a different way if they knew they'd be charged. We spend a tremendous amount of time and resources reviewing complicated scientific review documents that can span hundreds and thousands of pages.l It would be an extreme disadvantage to eliminate fees because that would be carte blanche to requesters to abuse the process and we would not likely be able to satisfy FOIA deadlines ever. I believe we should increase fees because there are still some who abuse the FOIA fee waivers and use so many resources that others in the public do not get as much service. 3 I foresee a plethora of disadvantages with eliminating FOIA fees. The number of FOIA request, including voluminous FOIA requests, would increase. Requesters would be less likely to narrow their request. Requesters would submit multiple requests. Federal agencies would feel a huge administrative burden. Eliminating FOIA fees would have a massive impact on agencies. The only thing that keeps the whole FOIA process within reason is assessment of fees. Without fees any requester could submit broad, burdensome requests without any consideration of agency resources needed to fill the requests, FOIA offices could be going on time consuming wild goose chases for information. If members of the public aren't charged fees, the number of requests would likely skyrocket and agencies would be set up to fail in meeting deadlines.f Eliminating FOIA fees will speed up the process, besides Open Government should be free to the public. I see more disadvantages to eliminating FOIA fees. Rationale, by assessing fees or providing estimated fee which allow the requester to think twice or narrow down their request vs asking for everything.q I see a disadvantage. Presently, the prospect of high fees helps keep some absurdly burdensome requests in check. The disadvantages to eliminating FOIA fees is the system would be overwhelmed by FOIA request. The backlog would mulitiply tenfold, if not more. t If we eliminated FOIA fees, the process would be simpler. However, elimination could result in burdensome requests. Advantage - eliminating fees would decrease the amount of time it takes to process FOIA requests. Disadvantage - eliminating FOIA fees may result in an increased number of large and complex requests.0 We should charge more, and more often, NOT less. Makes it easy to process Requesters using the FOIA as discovery will really take advantage, the requests will be out of control at a time we're being mandated to reduce backlogs. Eliminating fees certainly wouldn't help that. Also, we'd be giving unclassified technical data away for free. Right now request< ers are charged at a higher rate using DD 2086-1 and the organization searching for and reviewing the weapons drawings, specifications, etc. retains the money received. disadvantage. I know from experience requesters would ask for every and all document if they knew they didn't have to pay. Also, there are several "information" companies that sell what they request from us for a lot more than we charge FOIA requests continue to increase each year; cutbacks and reduction in forces mean less personnel to do the increasing workload. Fees should be collected at all times.Z If the fee is eliminated, it will eliminate a big chunk or time that is taken away on fees Some requests are submitted by attorneys and related to a specific case they're preparing for. I would prefer they pay for our time and effort to produce these documents. When requester is required to pay fees it limits the scope. They only request what they really need. No fees would cause an overload Our ability to charge FOIA fees is an incentive for FOIA requesters to think about what it is that they really want and to narrow the scope of their request. Otherwise, they ask for everything, including the kitchen sink!X Disadvantage in that fees can help keep the size and breadth of the request reasonable. Z Eliminating fees would remove one tool available to help limit the scope of FOIA requests.2 Fee process is too ambiguous for any success rate.U We are a non-appropriated fund. Eliminating fees would decrease our support to MWR. The amount of time spent working with requesters on fee related issues is often more time consuming and expensive than the cost savings generated.W Disadvantages to eliminating FOIA fees the potential of risk of FOIA requesters flooding agencies with FOIA requests since they would no longer have to pay processing fees. Speculated that this could increase agency FOIA backlogs and response times. Addition, there are not enough FOIA Officers to process the increase of FOIAs in each agency. Collecting fees from "other" and "commercial" requesters helps the requester narrow their request to what they actually want instead of a catch-all. I believe eliminating FOIA fees would definitely increase our workload. Once requesters knew that there would not be a charge, the requests would flood in. Seems unfair that those seeking it for a commercial advantage wouldn't have to pay. If fees were eliminated, some other rules would have to be put in place limiting individuals' ability to request massive numbers of documents and complex, time-consuming searches. No advantage. It would be a big disadvantage if we got rid of fees. Fees, in the context of a commercial use requesters, often allow us a process to negotiate with the requester about narrowing the scope of the request. d I think need to keep rerquestors honest for what they are asking for in terms of time, copying, etc. right now we see the majority of commercial requesters and most times thats the only leverage we have to get them to narrow the scope of records. However, some of them to have unlimited budgets therefore sometimes that still doesnt work. With that, I also believe that there should not be any fees for regular joe or jane doe to get information. Only commercial requesters should pay. Disadvantage would be voluminous requests and getting them to narrow by discussing fees. Advantage to elimating would be the administrative time on reviewing and assessing fees.
I see advantages to eliminating them entirely, but it also might make sense for OMB to simply mandate the threshold for charging fees at an extremely high level. That would eliminate some of the petty, wasteful maneuvering on fee issues for requesters and agencies.l Our agency has a large commercial requester base, and fees are frequently used to help narrow down requests. If fees were eliminated then groups such as Muckrock or Black Vault would completely clog the system at first and it would take an extreme amount of time to catch up. R Fee currently serve as the only method for limiting the scope of certain requests. Fees are often a way for requesters to be more precise and judicious in how they formulate requests, which is helpful to all parties involved.r Eliminate it; cases that fees may be applicable normally are not processed in a timely manner and fees are waived y I think we shouls eliminate the fees. The money does go back to the agency to add staff to assist with increasing staff. No, as most of our departments are based off of project funding for their salaries, the FOIA fees help offset the time that is used to process the FOIAs.Z Most of the time, the cost of processing the collected fees is higher than the fee itself. Disadvantages: We already have people abusing the process by filing mulitple little requests so they can get their free two hours/100 pages. If we can't charge them anything it will make it almost impossible to get them to narrow their requests and they will instead file requests for "everything" and expect it all to be free. Also, I don't think it is fair to expect the tax payers to have to subsidize the sometimes tremondous costs involved in processing voluminous requests from individuals who are on a snipe hunt who have no intention of further disseminating the information that is released.
I also definitely do not think that commercial requesters should get a free ride of any kind. Eliminating FOIA fees will encourage requesters to file more requests and requests that are larger in scope, which will further stretch agencies already limited FOIA resources. Advantage: we can be more efficient in processing FOIAs, simpler
Disadvantage: we get too many fishing expeditions & aimless requests/questions anyway. Charging fees is one of the only ways we have to moderate this.- I think law firms should have to pay. Advantage advantage to eliminating FOIA fees: I believe fees should be charged to commercial use requesters when there are voluminous documents to locate and review. Otherwise, I don't believe it is necessary to charge fees. The disadvantage of eliminating FOIA fees is that requester will requests any and everything no matter how much of a burden it places on the agency and expect to get information in a timely manner.E We need to update the FOIA fees to allow for higher fee charges and more categories of requesters that can be charged. Federal agencies are inundated with frequent requesters who clog the sytem with voluminous requests, and leave little recourse for the agency to negotiate when a case has gone past the processing deadline. Disadvantage is that the government would absorb the overall cost associated with FOIA requests, which could increase the number of requests. I do not see any advantages for eliminating FOIA fees. We spend a lot of time and effort processing the requets. Even though the money goes to the Treasury its nice to know that some of our time is recouped. 8 It would be a great disadvantage to eliminate FOIA fees. We receive numerous requests from individuals who are simply trolling for information and thus those requests can be very broad. Charging fees is the only way agencies can urge those individuals to narrow the scope of their requests to get to the heart of what they are looking for. If we got rid of fees, requesters would most certainly take advantage of the FOIA by requesting large volumes of records which would bog agencies down, and in turn prevent other requesters from timely receiving their records. Disadvantage. Collecting responsive information is time consuming and a collateral duty. It is even more time consuming if the information must be redacted prior to release. FOIA responses should not be a free service. Advantages - (1) eliminate a step that becomes moot if we are unable to complete a request in the 20-day time period due to unusual circumstances or a backlog
Disadvantage - If there are numerous voluminous requests, we need to re-coup the time and effort in processing a case. Most FOIA offices have a small budget, if any. To not receive fees for cases with an overwhe< lming amount of documents, searching in numerous offices, and long review periods seems unfair to the efforts exerted.u we have many folks who request under FIOA and demand that all fees be waved-why should the public not pay for copies T I think it would be a disservice to agencies to eliminate FOIA fees. I know that my agency has a substantial backlog and unfortunately we are not able to charge fees. However, due to the insurmountable tasks of researching and reviewing such voluminous documents, we should charge fees. Fees may limit information sought by the requester.R Standardizing and regulating FOIA fees should result in state or national revenue. Disadvantages: If a request can be made without any impact of fees owed then the requesters can make the most outlandish requests without regard to the burden this would place upon an agency.> No, because our agency is providing a service to the customer.u It seems like an inefficient use of time to continue going back and forth with the requester providing fee estimates.a The time and energy haggling over fee categorys and the collection of fees greatly exceeds the value of the actual fees collected. HOWEVER, it is imperative that all requesters pay something for their FOIA request(s). If all FOIA requests are free the system WILL BE ABUSED. Requesters get serious about their requests when it has a cost associated with it. If it is free, they abuse the privilege. This is human nature. There must be some 'more than token' user fee associated with every FOIA request. We should uncomplicate the fee process BUT everyone must pay a reasonable FOIA request 'user fee.' My agency spends very little time on search and most of the request are for specific reports and are not burdensome so we haven't had any reason to charge fees. the disadvantage would be that we use our resources to answer the FOIA request and should be reimbursed for our supplies and time. v Disadvantage - students will take advantage of no fees and not do any original work and we cannot fulfill our mission. The time spent on obtaining estimates, communicating with requesters (particularly on rescoping so as to minimize fees), handling fee collection, far exceeds any benefits from funds being collected into the General Fund. As more and more emphasis is placed on agencies publishing FOIA requests and responses, we're saying there is public interest/value in doing so, mitigating the argument why the User Fee Statute/FOIA mandate fees for "special services". I feel when you have attorneys asking for information and they are going to benefit from that information then a fee should be charge. There are individuals that try to profit from free information to create maps for their own business. Fees for be charge for those that are trying to benefit/charge other individuals. When someone is just asking for a permit because they are trying to educate themselves that's not for profit. Public doesn't need to be charged for something that the government already has on the internet.p Eliminating fees and fee determination would allow more time for FOIA processing and may clear up FOIA backlogs. Because FOIA is not funded, FOIA fees defray costs of the program to taxpayersl. I'd be OK with funding FOIA and eliminating fees.# Less fee related appeals/litigationx The cost of processing the payments that goes to the US Treasury is not cost effective to this self-funded organization.` From a FOIA requester perspective--- who doesn't like a free service.
From a FOIA processor perspective-- this would open the flood gates wide open. I predict the number of FOIA requests submitted would increase as would agency backlogs. I don't think we'd be able to respond to requests any faster. We are having to juggle multiple requests as it is while short-staffed. I believe a service rendered should be paid for by those with commercial interests, those that fall under the other-use category, etc. I still believe media should not pay and, in fact, I believe neither should non-profits.
We often use fees to justify a reduction in the scope of the request. If fees were eliminated, requestors would ask for everything. We spend a considerable amount of time obtaining and evaluating responses to the fee waiver criteria, only to have a denial appealed and the Washington Office grant it for several different reasons, sometimes because they miss the deadline for responding!5 While the collection of fees doesn't add much to the Treasury, it does provide a meaningful limit on FOIA requests that might be overly broad. Because a requester has to pay for excessive search time, that requester is less likely to request voluminous records that aren't really of interest to the requester. I do not believe eliminating fees would be in the government's best interest. I believe if done so, it would result in less cooperation from the requester to define/narrow requests when they are overly broad and result in fees.C Eliminate time spent on determining fee issues, and eliminate collection data related to fees for annual FOIA reports. Fees do not come back to the agency, so there is no advantage for agencies to charge fees. If agencies were allowed to retain actual expenses to offset cost of FOIA processing, it would be an advantage. The fees can be considered a "reimbursment" of the salaries for those individuals pulled from their normal duties to search for records which are sometimes only of relevance to a very small group or single individual. k Eliminating fees would increase the costs of complying with the FOIA without offsetting any of those costs.5 without a fee, people will ask for extensive records.W Sometimes the imposition of fees is the only thing discouraging the requester for asking for voluminous amounts of information, i.e., EVERY email by EVERY person in the organization concerning this topic - with no time restraint! If we eliminated FOIA fees, we would never be able to keep up with the program with the staff we presently have. I would eliminate them. When they are appealed, OGC almost always decides in favor of granting waivers. Because of the Internet, the threshold of who is "media" is very low. Congress has already moved to the eliminating of fees as a penalty. Congress instead should give us additional operating costs to cover lost fees or the costs of processing the biggest requests that we get because of the lost fees. T h e r e w o u l d b e d i s a d v a n t a g e s t o e l i m i n a t i n g f e e s . F o r F O I A r e q u e s t s t h a t a r e c o m p l i c a t e d a n d / o r v o l u m i n o u s , i n i n s t a n c e s w e r e r e q u e s t e r s k n o w t h e y a r e c o m p l i c a t e d o r v o l u m i n o u s , t h e r e w i l l b e n o l e v e r a g e t o g e t t i n g a r e q u e s t e r t o l i m i t t h e r e q u e s t . W h e n w e a r e a b l e t o a c c u r a t e l y a d v i s e o n f e e s b a s e d o n t h e D D 2 0 8 6 , i n m o s t i n s t a n c e s r e q u e s t e r s a r e m o r e w i l l i n g t o r e d u c e o r c l a r i f y t h e r e q u e s t o n c e t h e y a r e n o t i f i e d o f f e e s . I f f e e s a r e t a k e n a w a y , r e q u e s t e r s m a y b e m o r e a m p t o a s k f o r a n y a n d a l l d o c u m e n t s r a n g i n g f r o m e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s o f t i m e b e c a u s e o f t h e r e m o v a l o f f e e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e r e q u e s t , w h i c h i n m a n y c a s e s s e r v e s a s a c h e c k a n d b a l a n c e t y p e o f s y s t e m t o g e t r e q u e s t e r s t o h o n e i n o n w h a t t h e y r e a l l y n e e d i n s t e a d o f r e q u e s t i n g a u n i v e r s e o f d o c u m e n t s & t h a t a r e u n n e c e s s a r y . E l i m i n a t i n g f e e s c a n n o t o n l y b u r d e n t h e c u s < todians, but also lead to overwhelming offices that do not have professionals dedicated to FOIA full time. Fees are only used to convince requesters to narrow their requests. We don't keep fees, so its often more hassle to collect them than to just not charge.m One less administrative action to consider that really does not have a bearing on responding to FOIA requests Disadvantages, for sure. One, that FOIA searches, especially when they include emails, are very, very costly of agency staff time. The taxpayer should be reimbursed for that. Two, that fees are a means for the FOIA staff to help the requester focus on what he/she really cares about. There is no public benefit in spending public resources searching for information the requester has only slight interest in, and there is an enormous impact on the agency's ability to comply with deadlines when the request is vast.
Three, database requests constitute an increasing number of requests, and frequently involve consultant time. Again, the taxpayer should not be alone in footing that bill. I think that charging fees discourages frivolous and/or broad requests. Without FOIA fees, the cost of these requests would fall on the American taxpayer. Therefore, I think that fees should not be eliminated. Fees should be in place to encourage serious requesters and discourage requesters who can easily find the information in the public domain and use FOIA to do research for them. Each agency incurs costs to search and produce records. Disadvantage - There would be little to limit a requester from asking for a burdensome search except for time. We do not have the resources to respond to the overly broad requests we get now. While eliminating fees would mean less time spent on fee issues, that time would not make up for the increase in burdensome search time. The backlog would increase since response time would not be tolled for fee issues. No advantage to eliminating the fee system. Our FOIA Officer is knowledgeable regarding fees and spends a nominal amount of time on this issue. : Advantage - "Who cares" we don't get the money anyway, and it costs so much in manpower to deposit the checks (They come here, we update the case file log, make a copy, compose a cover memo to send the check for deposit, mail the check off, get a receipt back it's been deposited, update it in our files - it's time consuming and doesn't contribute to our bottom line in any form (e.g. doesn't help with the backlog, we just spend time to help give the gov't a small check and the manpower spent to process it sometimes exceeds the small fee).
Benefit of fees - it does deter some requestors, we have too many people asking for large quantities of material just to be on a fishing expedition, the information being requested sheds no light on the gov't operations or how we conduct business, it's just one person's emails to the person they were having an inappropriate relationship with that their spouse wants copies of, etc. - so having fees that cover searches in that instance are helpful. Review time I think should be charged to EVERYONE, that is the bulk of the cost - search these days isn't as time consuming as it was when I first entered the FOIA career field and we had a lot of paper-based records. Review time has always been what takes a lot of time to ensure you aren't releasing (b)(6) protected material primarily. High fees encourage requesters to narrow scope, resulting in less work for all parties.
Fee waivers result in the requester wanting everything, meaning they have to wait longer and requests stay open longer. Requesters sometimes withdrawl their request after finding out how much their request will cost, therefore wasting hours of search/work time that could have been spent on another case.r Eliminate them. 99% of all FOIA requesters have figured out how to work the system and provide documentation that allows them a fee waiver. The other 1% are commercial entities that usually narrow their request to limit the amount of fees they need to pay...it's all a game. And besides, the fee schedule (per hour + 16%) is soooo out of date that it doesn't cover our costs anyway. And if we bring those fees to current day $, we'll be hearing from the requesters...and it won't be good. I'd like to know how much the Treasury collects each year for FOIA fees...is it putting a dent in the National Debt? Eliminate fees.b DO NOT ELIMINATE FEES! PLEASE!! Charge Commercial Requesters DOUBLE what we charge others & etc. We get enough very broad in scope requests in which there is also a request for fee waiver. I would rather see everyone pay than to keep letting these select few who know they can have a fee waiver tie up personnel and resources at the expense of the taxpayer.r A disadvantage of elimination FOIA fees would increase the number of request and the type of documents requested. 8 The requests will still be submitted regardless of fees.S Normally the work I do doesn't amount to collecting any fees. Not worth the hassleD Usually are not able to charge due to how long it takes to responds. I don't think they should be eliminated because some requests are so voluminous it takes so many hours and so much paper, etc. k I have not been in the FOIA process for long; however, not charging a fee may encourage drawn out requests. Yes and No. Yes, fee elimination in theory would be great. However, it is the only defense that agencies have to keep scopes reasonable. If fees are not assessed properly (requesters will ask for everything and the kitchen sink). This will really increase Agencies backlogs and stain already short staffed FOIA Processing Offices. I do not think elimination of FOIA fees is a prudent idea. I see several disadvantages to eliminating FOIA fees. If there were no fees, many FOIA requests would be overly broad, overly voluminous and it would take substantially longer to complete them. Disadvantage - Some requests require significant time to research, compile and review information responsive to the request and the public must be charged for this service. Responding to FOIA's is other duties as assigned and is not directly part of an Agencies mission. It's a service that the entire public has to pay for when the majority of the public is not asking for this information. b Charging fees is a good way to disincentivize burdensome FOIA requests from reoccuring requesters. Agencies who charge fees for FOIA do not receive the fees. Fees are sent to US Treasury. No advantage in the extra work to process fees. Disadvantage - commercial requesters could overwhelm the system if no fees were required as well as students doing research. Elimination of fees throws out one of the last effective tools for narrowing a request No advantage in eliminating fees. Hundreds of hours are spent on FOIA using various grade levels within our organization. These hours takes away from our principle duties which are still there at the end of the day. The government should be compensated for hours spent processing FOIAs as they will in turn have to use those funds for premium pay when workers have to work extra hours to complete their primary tasks.. I beleave it is a tool to make everything fairS It stops the haggling over fees in general and eliminates worrying about deadbeats. I work for the ˹ֳ. We are allowed to charge fees because we are providing copies for researchers regardless of whether or not they make a FOIA request or not. We are allowed by statute to charge fees for copies of our records. Advantage: the fees do not cover anywhere near what it costs to process a FOIA request and it feels pointless to do the work..
The disadvantage ees DO discourage non-serious requests.
Some searches are very labor intensive and require the agency to pay a contractor to develop queries to pull the requested information. It is important that the federal government be able to recoup some of these costs. Eliminating fees would be advantageous to more timely response because it would omit many steps. However, it would be disadvantageous because requesters would< not consider costs when submitting requests and would likely ask for voluminous records. I see it as a large disadvantage to eliminating FOIA fees -- while it takes time, it does discourage large, burdensome requests, and those that are not serious about their FOIA request.m Yes you could save time reviewing fee waiver requests. However you will have no way to limit large requests.3 To deter frequent frivolous or voluminous requests.u I see a disadvantage in that it could slow down responses overall if agencies are saddled with overly broad requests. Fees help requestors understand the time and effort involved in locating and reviewing the documents requested. While fees should not be used as a deterrent, fees can provide an incentive for requestors to work cooperatively with agencies to narrow the scope of their requests. Disadvantage
Some files that we process can be upwards of 2000 pages. Had a file one time that was 12,000 pages. This file took about three days to process. The FOIA letter was 17 pages long. When this arises not only do we incur the problem or printing these documents but also this takes away from the time to process other requests. The fee we associate with the request not only helps to replace some of the cost for printing but also the man power it takes to process such a large work load. Our funding is already so low and we do not have enough man power to handle the amount of requests we get any extra funding is a tremendous help. z I believe fees have a place in the processing of FOIA requests and i believe it would be a disadvantage to eliminate them.X We don't generally charge fees for cases because the amount would not be worth charging.8 Commercial requesters would overwhelm my office for thousands of pages of grant applications that are submitted to my office each year. Many of these commercial requesters then turn around and resell this information. In addition, many commercial requesters use the FOIA as an alternative to discovery motions.8 It would speed processing and reduce fee waiver appeals. Eliminating FOIA fees could cause other bigger agencies to be overwhelmed with FOIA requests while courts still hold the government to a strict statutory. deadline. 8 Disadvantage - requests will go up if there are no fees.] My agency doesn't receive the complicated requests like other agencies do, I defer to them. A blanket fee per page - whether scanned, copied, etc, would eliminate the back and forth and negotiating fees. Additionally, it would eliminate the need to address media status, especially since many FOIA staff get confused between this 'fee category' and how fee waivers apply.a we havent charged fees for requests in over 5+ years because we are never able to respond in timek Fees are tool for negotiation with requesters who submit overly broad requests and are unwilling to narrow.S One disadvantage in eliminating fees will result in many unwarranted FOIA requests. Advantage- we don't really charge fees anyways, but have to clarify fee issues. Disadvantage- we have no way else to combat HUGE cases. Their scope is too large and they want to stall the organization instead of really wanting to accessing information. + only in eliminating the effort to collect. we get requests for contracts from competitors and believe it make requests really hard to narrow since there will no longer an incentive to do so. D o y o u t h i n k t h a t c h a r g i n g o n l y a f l a t f e e ( f o r e x a m p l e , $ 5 1 0 ) f o r a l l r e q u e s t e r s w o u l d r e d u c e t h e t i m e s p e n t o n d e t e r m i n i n g f e e i s s u e s ? F But it would be difficult to justify eliminating exemptions/discounts.i The flat rate would eliminate unnecessary time needed to determine the fee for processing a FOIA request.| No. Based upon the FOIA requests received, many requesters are already authorizing only $25.00 in fees and requesting fee waivers for that amount. A similarly small amount of fees would still result in having to address fee waivers but without the benefit listed under #6.
In addition, a flat fee of that small amount is generally under the threshold of most agencies to collect. Our agency, for example, does not charge fees if the amount is below $25.00.
Finally, a flat fee structure does not achieve the FOIA fee structure goals of 1) reflecting actual processing, or 2) placing more of the fee burden on commercial requesters.i Well, as far as I know each agency has their own fee schedule set up and some parts may not be necessary. each request fee should be accessed for the work involved to make it fair for the requestor. Determining the fee is a part of the FOIA process so it should be done regards of the time it requires. Most requesters don't inform us their maximum amount they would spend for a request, so we would probably still have to get approval even if we had flat fees.> A flat fee would be of an advantage since not everybody processing a FOIA request works at the same speed. For example what might take one person one hour to search and process could take another person 4 hours to search and process. This is not fair to the requestor because it is up to luck which OPR he/she gets. Q The bulk of the time spent on fee issues is unrelated to determining the amount. I believe that charging a flat fee (like Canada) would be a mistake. Although it would reduce the nominal time spent on determining fee issues, it would increase the amount of time spent on the few unreasonable requests. See answer to number 6 above. It's possible, but ii would not reduce the overall processing time if there are no limits on the temporal scope of records requested.Q The current fee schedule is very cumbersome....a flat fee would ease the problem. Flat fee sounds reasonable. The waiver is available to those category of requestors who cannot afford to pay the fees. I believe that fees encourage the requestor to really how important the information is to them in practical, tangible and intangible terms. Yes. Fee categories are obsolete. The new media category specifically...almost everyone has access to post information online and provide data to the public. Although it would reduce time spent, I think it would be unfair to charge the same fee for every request, regardless of complexity.^ It would reduce time spent on determining fee waiver issues and simplify calculating costs. 5 any time saved on determining fees would come back with avengence in terms of processing times...it is a bad idea to make a flat fee.. Maybe a "pay to play" fee--to explore/research/search for large unfocused requests for which it can be time consuming to get to the point of a fee estimate, Such requests usually require time of the product offices/other working outside of FOIA if the records are not already in the document control room. So if the flat fee (which would have to be much more than 5-10 dollars, but more like $250 to 500 or so, for those requestors that choose not to narrow or focus but want everything--have them pay a fee upfront--so that we can then do the work to get them an estimate. consider charging the flat fee to all requestor types who request mutiple items for broad sweeping topics etc Lengthy cases would cost the same amount as short cases which wouldn't allow the amount of time used to be factored in to the cost. The manpower used in processing a case needs to be considered as part of the fee calculation. z but that fee should be much higher than $10 dollars. More like $35 to keep it consistent with current expectation of $25.s For the minimal fees that we collect, whether flat or as it is now, it would make very little difference... if any. more often than not - the OPR and legal office would not even fill out the DD 2086. I would have to fill out the form - guesstimating everyone's time spent processing the request. It would be unfair to a requester in the "Other" category to charged the same amount as a requester in the "Commercial" category. This question is slanted and confusing. If Congress chose to < make this change, the time spent determining fee issues would be reduced, but the number of very broad requests would increase (as they would be free), slowing down agency response times in responding to FOIA requests.Z Again, I believe that Major Requesters would take advantage of flat rate, abuse the systemD This will increase the number of cases which will make things worse.) Yes, but it should not be lower than $15.j I personally do not spend much time on determining fees. However, I have a small amount of FOIA requests. I think that all FOIA should be charged. An additional fee should be paid based upon the amount of information the researcher is requesting.I Larger request require more time and support. Therefore should cost more.0 To include news media and all favored categories Requesters would know how much they will be charged before they submit the FOIA request. This could reduce the "stop the clock" for fee responses.f For simple FOIA requests, a flat fee would definitely reduce the time spent in processing the request. Flat rate of $50 is more sufficient, considering most OPRs who process documents are GS-07/09 and above, to include professional reviews such as legal. Flat fee might work, but I would have a different fee for each category. Different levels should pay different prices. We still need to track overall cost (man-hours) it takes to process.5 Determining fees doesn't take much time to begin with Should be more like $50.00. I do, however would this fee be applied to folks looking for their own records (Privacy Act), and what about folks asking for copies of records where they're mentioned, but it's not a PA request?Z OPRs are inconsistent with their time estimates so I am not sure fees are always accurate.r Flat fees reduce time spent by the OPR calculating fees. The FOIA also spend valuable time trying to collect fees.u Of course it would, but such a fee would fail to distinguish between the two-page document and the 1000-page document As an alternate to my response to question 6 above, I would vote on a flat fee to all of no more than $5 - 10 for each and every request to reduce the time spent on determining fee issues and would fit perfectly in this new date/age of electronics!g Don't have to go back and forth with requester regarding fees plus don't have to deal with fee waivers It would reduce the time, but I don't think it would be fair to have a flat fee for those searching a 20 page document versus those searching a 1000 plus page document. K I think for that small amount of money and the volume of administrative actions that will be required since the fees will apply to everyone, getting it into the proper finance channels will cause an undue burden to FOIA managers/processors. Using the current process, the need to process fees is minimal at least in our command. [ Processing a 2086 takes minimal time to complete. The OPRs must be honest when completing.u Saves time clearly, eliminates picking apart time spent on finding bits and pieces of records. Strongly recommended !I I am not sure it is worth the time to charge ALL requesters a nominal fee No, see item 6 explanation.b Not for our organization because we are in the business of distributing information to the public/ It would reduce time, but should be analyzed against how many requesters are not charged a fee based on their requester category or other reasons. Maybe not charge fees for certain types of requesters and not others. A simple flat fee would be good for other category requesters. However, the fee should be $25.00 to $50.00 to prevent being bombarded by the frequent requesters. A $25.00 to $50.00 fee would provide incentive for requesters to only ask for information they really want rather than flooding offices with requests. Would be a service to the taxpayers. Commercial requests could either be charged a higher flat fee, i.e. $100.00 or continue to be charged as is. I think it should be more than $5 - 10 and be based on the actual average impact on resources. Again, refer to NARA's way of doing business as a potential example. I think requests will be larger and requesters may no longer narrow the scope of their requests if fees are reduced significantly. But also limit the amount of material in a single request. I can't see paying the same amount for 100 hours and 200 pages as you would for half again as much. Yes it would reduce significantly if there was a flat fee schedule of some kind, but again large request should be addressed in another manner.* It is not difficult to determine fees now. Bad question. The time spent determining fees is irrelevant compared to the impact of making flat fees regardless of the size and time spent on processing a request. If all fees were $10, federal agencies would get buried by a mountain of "Send me everything" requests.Q yes but there should be multiple flat fees depending on the information requestedV You would spend less time but you would lose money too compared to the current charge.? Time spent determining fee issues is usually excessive when the requester is asking for a fee waiver. Even if we have a flat fee for all requesters, some requesters would still request a fee waiver. If we charge a flat fee, I believe the cost should be no less than $25 and should not apply to commercial requesters. Why bother at all with the rates you provided. Most agencies have a $25 minimum which may still not cover the cost of processing the payment. Yes it would, but it wouldn't be worth processing the check and accepting cash would cause more issues and take time. Also, individual requesters shouldn't have to pay for information they have a right to receive. While this would reduce the administrative burden, it would ultimately provide no benefit - especially for an agency such as ours that has a relatively small number of request to process annually.2 It might or might not help. If the news/media have to pay for anything, that would deter them from asking for boxes and boxes of records. However, if the cost goes down, then the commercial entities (e.g., law firms) who are usually able to pay a lot of money might be less willing to narrow the scope. 6 It would, but I don't feel there should be a flat fee.* A flat fee would reduce processing time. but would increase the amount of time spent by staff researching and retrieving records because many requestors narrow their scope due to fees Simple math There is no reason there should be "fee issues"; the regulations are pretty cut and dry. FMS2 calculates the cost. If they are asking us to do the research for them, they should have to pay for it. But, where do the fees go, not back to our agency?? A flat fee will reduce the time spent on determining fee issues and cause requesters to become more informed about the FOIA request process. H But please note this does not mean I am in favor of charging a flat fee.c there would be too many inequities and the fee levels would be questioned depending on the request.L the length and breath of research is different depending on the FOIA request0 Time spent to determine fees is already minimal.4 We do not spend much time on determining fee issues.T Yes, it would, but it would add a great deal of time to processing requests overall.[ There should not be fee issues if requesters are provided with cost estimate ahead of time.a A flat fee with respect to which category? Search time? Media requesters aren't charged for this. I think that in cases where voluminous records are released there should be a flat charge. or when releasing more than 1,000 pages.l People would still complain about flat fees, and still ask for a fee waiver even if the flat fee is nominal.i It takes more time to calculate fees than is beneficial to the organization esp. for "other" requestors. \ Flat fees are a bad idea. Some requests or only one piece of paper while others are 50,000. 0 It would but that may not be the wisest course. It would reduce time on fee estimates but it would increase the time spent collecting the fees and may possibly discourage people f< rom requesting records. I think it would unfairly harm the "simple," & "normal" type requests and favor the "complex" and "voluminous" requests.h Commercial requesters should be charges for all hours worked but no profits should all be charged $25.00E Certainly; however, it creates other problems, i.e, serial requestersg It might reduce the time spent on determining fee issues for the "all others category", since they may reduce their number of requests. However, I don't agree all requesters should be charged a flat fee. Organizations that have funding will increase their number of requests...kinda like a "case lot" sale on information and conversly increase their appeals. g No estimates, no returning checks and asking for replacements if estimate doesn't jibe with final cost. We have few FOIA requests, but some take weeks to months of staff time and involve multiple offices. $5-10 does not come close to the cost of researching and completing a request. Yes, it would. However, it would not be a "fair" charge if someone requesting 1-10 documents pays the same as someone requesting several thousand documents.; they still must be dealt with regardless of the fee charged Requesters would increase the scope of what they are asking for in many cases and the time we spend on determining fee issues is minimal.# This would make things alot easier.T No, as some requests are more complicated and it takes more time to search & review.: little to no time currently spent on fees for 90% of FOIAs charging fees in all cases would result in a significant increase in administrative costs and time, which would result in additional processing delays. Additionally, the flat fee would negatively affect the majority of requesters; particularly those that do not routinely submit requests or use the FOIA. However, an "administrative handling" fee should be added to all commercial requesters - this fee should be collected when the request is submitted.8 A flat fee would be helpful if applied to all requesterss Reduce the stress of fighting with the requester as to their fee category and opening the government to the public. Sure, but determining fees is part of the job, and it's time well spent. Some requests require significant effort, leaving employees' "real" work undone -- the agency should recoup that whenever possible. Fees based on the actual value of the person doing the work are useful. It's not that hard to generate a fee request. I mean, if someone's whining from within the Gov, they need to get over themselves and man up! I think the fee should be affordable enough for the average citizen but it should also be based on the amount of information collected to aviod frivious filings. It would certainly reduce the amount of time spent on fee issues, but it would likely increase the time spent processing overly broad requests.: I think a flat fee will over burden the agency with FOIAs. n/a? However, I do not think it would be fair to charge a flat fee. no case is equal Cause it would eliminate having to wait for the contractor to get back to us on what the estimate it and etc etc. That takes time. % All fee categories would have to pay. Eliminate FOIA fees entirely it would make it easier to determine fees and result in less time spent tracking search time and looking up the hourly rate of searches.G Yes, but we would be wasting money processing the fees into the system.Z Folks would request the universe knowing only a small fee would be expected and collected.g It would be had to set a fee when all FOIAs are different. Some take more time to process than others.m Volume of information processed for requests varies significantly, so it would be unfair to charge a flat fee5 Charging all requestors would become more of a burden| Yes but in a negative way considering that fees would not be a factor in asking for clarification or narrowing of requests. A flat fee would reduce determination issues, but collection procedures would not be cost-effective. We have to direct requesters to the Comptroller Collection Liaison and not receive any payments here. Yes, it would, BUT I have a fundamental issue with the idea of USG performing services for commercial entities without commensurate fees for services.7 A flat fee might reduce the time spent determining fees, but would be a terrible mistake. A person requesting thousands of documents would be charged the same amount as a person requesting a single document. That would be unfair. Either the flat fee would be unfairly high for the person requesting a single document or unfairly low for the requester asking for thousands. Such a practice would encourage very wide-ranging requests and would also encourage lawyers and businesses, which are currently charged more than journalists or researchers, to file requests.j I don't see fees as problem, but if you're going to charge a flat rate it shouldn't be less than $25-$50. It would reduce the time spent on those requests from nonprofit groups that believe they should receive all documents at no cost. Figuring out fees is not really difficult, especially with the FOIAonline "Admin Costs" function. A flat fee would penalize requesters who would not otherwise be charged. We don't charge for any request of under $20.
Unless you mean a flat $25 handling fee for all requests with additional fees for extensive search, review, & duplication...6 NO !!! I do NOT have time to chase every requester for money ... I'm swamped doing redactions and letters on over 600 requests per year. Charging and trying to collect from every single requester would be a TERRIBLE increased workload burden. Further, the current OMB Fee Guidelines state that no FOIA fees may be charged if the cost of collecting and processing the fee is likely to equal of exceed the amount of the fee itself. And the cost of collecting & processing $5-$10 charged to every requester certainly exceeds $5-$10 in employee time, labor & paperwork. Excellent idea. Maybe a flat fee depending on the number of pages involved would help. Ie: less then 50 pages, $5, 51-100 pages $10, etc... It may also be beneficial for coordination purposes when combining fees. Fees should be based on each individuals grade and step. The current $29.00 for professional search and review is too low, Raise the hourly to $45 - $50 an hour.[ There would be no need to examine the request & make judgements about which fee to apply. It is still time consuming with all involved with that one check. Follow the complete process of the check. It is also a burden on the requester. Who writes checks anymore?!?y At an Army installation, processing is part of normal duties and the extra work of fee for everyone not worth the return. Taking a short-sighted approach, yes, it would reduce the time spent on determining fees. But, I think this should be considered in totality, such as how it will affect the entire program, not just how long it takes to calculate the fees. a flat fee is no problem for requests that produce under 500 documents; but discourages requesters of burdensome requests from narrowing the scope of their requests A If everyone has to pay a fee, when would there ever be an issue? See above Definitely knowing that everyone will be charged the same is less time spent determining fees but more time collecting and reviewing records. All requests are different. Fees should (and currently are) be based on the size and effort of the search and responsive documents. This would streamline the whole fee process. No research would be needed on the placement of requesters and no need to provide waiver letters to requesters. Everyone would be on an even playing field. H Yes it would make it easier by not having to categorizing a requester. " Maybe it would, but since we hardly spend any time on that across government, what's the worry? We don't charge fees routinely because programs don't follow fee requirements. Could you get more FOIA processing done? Maybe, but even less would be done right, BECAUSE WE DON'T CHARGE FEES! Obviously it would, but it would be a bad idea. It is app< ropriate to have a bigger fee for a larger, more complicated request. self-explanatory!!!!- We would only have to process one fee letter.w A flat fee would be an advantage to both the requester and the processor because one rate would apply for all requests.k Sort of -but if requesters can still challenge even a flat fee - that still ties up agency FOIA resources. Processing three (3) pages of information versus three thousand (3,000) pages is not balance as far as time, compilation, redacting, copying etc. so I don't think that a flat fee would be fair in some instances. It would reduce it somewhat, yes. The main thing for me is how much time we spend (sometimes full DAYS) looking for records for someone who gets a fee waiver and is a frequent requester who gets it waived all the time and gets thousands of pages of records.S Not all requests are equal. Large requests eat up significant time and resources. + I think agencies should set their own fees. Charging a flat fee of $50 per request would likely minimize the amount of pointless requests while also applying a nominal fee. $5-10 is a waist of time. Needs to be $50, minimum.[ I believe it could reduce the time spent on trying to calculate fees and a billing invoice.7 Just streamline the current processing cost mechanism. However, you would encourage larger requests, if you are paying you should get as much as you can. This would fly in the face of my above comment.k Fees give a cost factor which limits the scope of some request without it the request would have no limits.8 No, because most requesters do not want to pay any fees. Determining fees does not take a long time and fees enable us to negotiate very large FOIA requests. If we have no leverage to negotiate requests then backlogs would significantly increase as well as workloads. Again, lowering the fees will only spur the public to ask for anything thereby causing limited resources to be further expended, and deadlines less likely to be met. b Same response as 6, above. Further, determining fee issues is not a huge administrative burden. The time spent on an increased number of requests resulting from reduced fees would far outweigh the time spent on determining fee issues. FOIA fee should be eliminated. A flat fee will encourage the requester to submit more request unless the flat fee is no less than $40. At least at this amount, it makes the requester to think twice prior to submit the request. At least at my own small agency, we need to figure out and assess fees quite rarely (2-3 times a year). And a flat fee that's that low would be inappropriate.k I think the flat rate fee should be based on the hourly salary rate of the employee processing the request. charging less is a horrid goal. It would reduce time spent on determining fee issues but I think volume of requests from commercial requesters would sky rocket. t it would reduce the time spent negotiating fees but we'd be doing alot of research papers for students and prisoners; Most requests cost much more than the minimum $15 anyway. I think everyone should pay a flat rate no matter if they are nonprofit or not. This will eliminate going back and forth with the requester to determine the fee information. \ I'd rather spend the time determining fee issues. The regulations, for DOE, are very clear.j Would reduce time spent on determining fees but would increase the processing times due to bigger requests When FOIA processing does not result in fees, and/or the fee waiver request is moot b/c no fees could be charged, which is frequently the case, closing the request is LESS time-consuming than those requiring the collection of fees or fee waiver adjudication. If we had to collect a check or money order on all requests (i.e., flat fee), we would not meet our processing time-frames! The rate suggested in the question is below the rate of processing a check. Having a rate this low would actually cost the government money. b However, how do you force limiting the scope of a request when fees are taken out of the equation? There is a history of a small number of requesters flooding agencies with requests, and that given this history the elimination fees would only make it worse. Currently, agencies do not have a tool in their toolkit to deal with extreme requesters. Charging a flat fee won't stop components from having to determine how much a request will actually cost them for inclusion in the annual report to Congress. Most of the fee burden isn't actually worked with the requester but is an internal matter. Possibly. However, I feel there needs to be different categories. Commercial requests would definitely rise in number. This would not help the need to still do submitter notice and do a page-by-page review for releasability. Unfair advantage to commercial requesters for sure. Not really, It may in some small way, but we would lose whatever leverage we had to negotiate with commercial requesters. In balance, we don't spend that much time on determining fees for us to forego the fee process.* Obviously, a flat fee is easier to manage.& I think a flat fee would reduce the time spent determining fee issues, yes, but it's a terrible idea. The reason for that is requesters will likely take a mile and submit incredibly broad requests the agencies will have zero shot at successfully completing, and lead to worse backlog problems. See above. G Most of our requesters are on fixed incomes and cannot afford the fees. Yes. But processing $5 or $10 check would cost the government more. I think it's not cost effective to collect FOIA fees, unless the chargeable fee is substantial. Commercial requesters and frequent filers who are abusing the FOIA process should have to pay for the actual time and costs, including review costs, that it takes to process the FOIAs.H Flat fee would be OK for simple/routine requests, but not for complex. a However, a flat fee would do little to discourage requeters from filing extremely broad requests. A lot of us aren't math experts, so it can take time to figure out fees and then to communicate how fees work to the requestors( I think a flat fee would be appropriate. It would reduce the time spent on determining fee issues, but it would not be fair to the requesters because some of the requests are simple and some are complex are require more time to process. A flat fee would make it easier for the agencies to process fees, and make it uniform across all agencies so the requester knows they are being treated fairly by the various FOIA offices. It would reduce the time but we would be giving the charge the same regardless of the volume of documents available to the requester. One may pay $10.00 for 100 pages and another may pay $10.00 for a thousand pages. Is that fiar?* I don't think determining fees is a lengthy process at all....the problem is overburdensome requests. I don't think it would be fare to charge flat rates to everyone. How is it fair to charge someone whose request takes 2 years to process the same rate as someone who only takes a month or two?? Yes, it would reduce the time in determining fees. A flat fee may be helpful, but then there is the question of whether it is fair to lump all requesters into one category. I agree with a flat fee and think all requesters including media should be charge fees because we are spending an inordinate amount of time processing documents, especially emails.k There would be very little time spent on determining if a requester meets the critera for a waiver of fees. I do, it save the FOIA Specialist time. Because a flat fee is already set for what they are requesting
and everyone is charge the same.
This would make for a more efficient use of time. It helps simplify the process and time is not spent wasted on trying to calculate fees and then wait for a response from the requester as to whether or not they wish to amend or proceed witht he request.y Certain flat fees is a good idea but it needs to be graduated in some manner. Example: Simple requests of less than 100 pages = $25.00 flat fee plus copy costs< over 100 pages. Simple, expedited requests of less than 100 pages = $100.00 flat fee plus copy costs over 100 pages.
Complex and commercial requests should continue to pay actual search, review, and copy costs. N/A for my agency= It could cut down on the time spent tallying up the charges. U Needs to be higher to defer frivolous large requests. How will the incarcerated pay? Exemption 4 when a submtter letter has to be sent asking if their information is permitted to be given out those individuals call and usually ask questions which take time to review and answer.' The FOIA prohibits this, anyway, based on requester category. Also, this question is unclear. Do we mean charging the same fee for an individual requesting one record as we do for an individual requesting twenty records? I hope not. The individual requesting one record would not be pleased.g It would eleminate the task of calculating the charges and eliminate challenges to fee determinations.I No, it would not make a difference nor would it hamper the processing of the request in a timely manner. Given the amount of work, time and taxpayer dollars it takes to process a request--- the government should get money back for this service rendered. Our agency has a mission to accomplish; in addition to the agency's mission there is another one addiitonal mission and that is to give the public the right to access information from the federal gov't.-- and that requires staff time and resources to meet the statutory guidelines set by DOJ in order to process FOIA requests. But I don't think that's the issue. We are able to give our requestors generalities, i.e., "That will cost well over $100" and they will narrow the scope of their request to something they want to pay for. I've never had a request wherein the requestor was willing to pay more than a few hundred dollars. We often use a rough estimate as a way of getting them to reduce the scope of the request. Not sure how you can set an adequate amount for all requesters. May have to set it up by group/amount of information requested. While this may shorten the time to determine how much fees to charge, it will not shorten the search and review time!O Most requesters shouldn't have to pay and the time determining fees is slight. ] Yes it would reduce the time, but it would not be a fair representation of actual time spent. While it would reduce the time spent on fee issues, it would have the result of being asked for more information, without the 'check' of having to pay fees for it. Less time to calculate4 Yes - lets charge everyone a fee or charge no one a fee. Either one or the other. The charging of fees - and all the thing things a requester can appeal - the fee category, fee waiver adds on to the time it takes to process a request and tolling the clock does not give us any additional time. Also, negotiating fees, helping programs with real estimates and trying to make sure that we process the requests on time in order to continue to charge fees is a hassle - most of our requesters are NGO's with large communication arms and we lose search fees (the one fee that we can routinely charge) as a penalty.
The charging of fees could add on 3 to 4 additional letters - fee estimates, fee collection, fee waivers, reimbursing fees if late with a request, determining if a requester is in the right fee category. This is a double sided question. I think that it could eliminate determining fees if the requesters hone in on the documents they actually need. I think it could lead to more complicated request as the requester may try to ask for all possible information under a one-fee type situation. It would be beneficial to charge all FOIA requesters something, especially in offices that do not have full time FOIA professionals. Each request requires some type of effort, even if a response is not provided. In the response, you typically have to involve custodians that also have projects and other items they are working on. Most of our requests are for inactive files, which require personnel to stop what they are currently doing and look for files that they may not have worked on in years. So there is an accumulation of fees: processing, search, and review. It would be beneficial for all requesters to share in this cost upfront. However, in some instance $5-$10 will not cover the cost to respond to a request. If a request is overly voluminous or complicated, and cross a certain threshold, the requester should also have to share in that expense. Most agencies only use fees to get requesters to narrow their requests. It would cost us more in time to collect a $10 fee than it's worth.r A nominal flat fee seems more trouble than it is worth. We spend too much time fussing about filer exempt status. Not for this FOIA Office. Determining fee category is fairly quick, and the program offices doing the searches provide the information on the search costs.s I think that charging flat fees discourages would remove the incentive to narrow requests to what is really needed. No.a It cost more than $5-10 to cash a check. Agencies would be losing money in that scenario. Obviously it would reduce the time spent on fee issues, but that misses the point. The Question should be: do you think charging a flat fee will facilitate responses to FOIA requests. Then the answer is no, it will jsut increase volume of requested documents.. I think a flat fee should be higher or based on category of requestor, but $5-$10 wouldn't even cover the time/processing costs of processing the actual check. A minimum charge would need to be $50. The flat fee should be much more. About $50. Maybe average the cost of all processing? Some initial estimates add up to tens of thousands, however.A I think it should be a higher amount if fees are charged at all. g We would still be playing a game. Those requesters who only get two pieces of paper or nothing at all will be livid. And the cost to the agency just to issue a bill for collection for $5-10 would be ridiculous! Our budgets have already been reduced to almost nothing...now you want us to process a bill for collection for each and every FOIA request...NOT!n Because you will still have to calculate and determine fees based on the amount of hours for search & review. a Most of the requesters we get are either commercial or all others, it is pretty straight forward.x I think this would be unfair only because some are so simple and short while others can be numerous boxes of informationI It would reduce time because it is a flat fee, no determination required. Yes, it would reduce fee assessment issues - but increase time spent on preparing FOIA responses to the requesters as the scope of requested information will ballon with no financial constraints to keep scopes in realistic check. It could. However, the fee depends on what grade the individual is that is compiling and reviewing the data. You really need to rates; a high end rate ($40.00 per our) and a low end rate ($20.00).< There would be no determination as there would be a flat feec Would reduce work load on fee waivers but would not off set the actual cost of processing requests.[ yes, if there was just one flat fee for everyone not much time would be spent on fee issues No advantage in a set fee. Hundreds of hours are spent on FOIA using various grade levels within our organization. These hours takes away from our principle duties which are still there at the end of the day. The government should be compensated for hours spent processing FOIAs as they will in turn have to use those funds for premium pay when workers have to work extra hours to complete their primary tasks. Since some of the employees who may assist in research and processing are State employees, it can be difficult to determine how to charge for their time.m Our fees are mandatory and are determined according to the ˹ֳ Trust Fund fee schedule set out. Excellent suggestion. A flat fee means not having to ask SMEs for cost estimates and then having to calculate the charged/not charged amounts, sending fee notificatio< ns, etc. It would reduce my time in going to the offices with the records and asking them to assess their time. However, a flat fee would be difficult to work -- and is not likely practical as each FOIA request is so different.t This would cause the majority of our requesters to pay a fee where now they fall into the 2-hour no-charge category.g Technically, yes but it will only create more problems without addressing any legitimate FOIA issues. a It wouldn't be fair to the requester. Some files take hours to process while others can be completed in a manner of minutes. A flat fee would not help those situations. The actual fee determination process takes only a few minutes at the end of the disclosure process. Its the processing and reviewing of the file that takes the most time. Not the fee. ` However it would be pointless to assess fees at all if they were going to be so small an amount.Z I would raise the fee to $25 though. $5-$10 is not worth the government's time to process.o Commercial requesters should have to pay the hourly rates of the employees involved for search and review costs; this would be a way to eliminate the "spam" FOIA requester. It does seem like it would resolve that issue, but my understanding is that there is a much bigger picture issue as to why fees are charged. Would a flat fee be set even for those agencies that don't charge fees? That would actually just complicate matters for us. Absolutely. Again, many FOIA staff do not understand the difference between fee category and fee waivers; they believe granting a specific fee category automatically qualifies for a complete fee waiver. Y As you stated, charging a flat fee would reduce the time spent on determining fee issues. This is a great idea to diminish the spam FOIAs we receive constantly. They FOIA every organization without reading what we truly do. . It would greatly reduce the spurious requests. If you think that FOIA fees are necessary to the FOIA process, how would you change the FOIA fee structure to improve overall FOIA processing for agencies? Please explain:
Response Text No changes.+ I would leave the FOIA fee structure as-is.U A flat rate should be charged for reviewing information responsive to a FOIA request. We would suggest eliminating the fee requester categories completely and increase the amount of free processing provided. "For example: requesters will be required to pay for processing beyond $150.00." Guidance to the agencies should ensure that this amount would cover at least 75% of the requests received over the last three years and that it be adjusted every three years.
This would eliminate the need to distinguish between the different types of requesters, but still allow those with a legitimate public interest waiver (which would include most reporters) to obtain a full waiver. This would be especially helpful as most requesters do not understand the difference between fee requester category and a fee waiver.@ Well, I agree with a flat fee rate that's a good place to start. Would not changeM A flat hourly fee should be charge, dont base it on the grade of the reviewer I would make sure that all requests are informed that they must submit a maximum amount for processing and if they don't than we would assume that their request is incomplet and denied until they submit a maximum amount. Suggestions:
1. Charge by volume not by time. We see it a lot that sometimes 50 pages can be more than 100 pages because of the person processing the FOIA request and their rank. This should not affect the requestor.
2. Charge by complexity, for example if one office can answer the request or has the records it should be less than if five offices have to collaborate on the FOIA request.
I'm not sureI Eliminate the fee categories (e.g., commercial, educational, all others).I b e l i e v e t h a t e x i s t i n g F O I A f e e p o l i c y i s w e l l w r i t t e n , a l l o w s f o r m o s t r e q u e s t s t o b e p r o c e s s e d w i t h n o f e e a s s e s s e d , a n d a l l o w s f o r b a l a n c e b e t w e e n s h e d d i n g l i g h t o n G o v e r n m e n t o p e r a t i o n s a n d b e i n g s o m e o n e s f u l l - t i m e d o c t o r a l t h e s i s r e s e a r c h g r u n t . I s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t h a t F O I A p e r s o n n e l c o u l d u s e m o r e t r a i n i n g a n d o v e r s i g h t o n a s s e s s i n g f e e s , a n d p r o p e r l y r e p o r t i n g h o w m u c h t i m e i s a c t u a l l y s p e n t o n ( s e a r c h ) p r o c e s s i n g r e q u e s t s w h e r e f e e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a s s e s s e d a n d w e r e n o t d u e t o a p a t h y o r m i s s i n g s t a t u t o r y t i m e l i m i t s . ! I don't think fees are necessary. I might raise the number of pages and amount of search time that a requester could receive without charge.
I would limit the temporal scope of the request for records created pre-1996 to increase the likelihood that these records are already in an electronic format I think you could still base it on time spent, utilizing the same waivers, but just set a flat fee for all employees time (not the current grade/step)7 Flat fee structure, scalable with time/resources spent.! I don't think they are necessary. I honestly do not believe that the current fee schedule provide a disincentive to the public requesting information. The checks and balance of course is the waiver. I would charge one flat fee and with todays technology everything can be emailed, put on a cd or downloaded and transferred to a cd] We should be able to charge for each page on a CD. Each page has to be uploaded onto the cd.@ I think the FOIA fees systems needs to stay in place, unchanged.\ A standard fee Search and Review time regardless if any responsive records are located; Duplication fee for requests over 200 pages, or equivalent value. For all batches of 1,000 pages charge a flat fee to all requesters ($50/batch of 100 pages, rounding down); no fee waivers. Example - 199 pages = no charge; 257 pages = $100; 4,000 pages = $2000 I would not change it.l I would charge a standard per hour fee, rather than have to compute fee based on each employees hourly wage. Have flat fees for FOIA as an example:
Other (general public) - $15.00 Non-Profit - $100.00
Media/educational - $15.00 Commercial - $100.00Q
loosing the ability to charge search time after 20 days is already a challenge...change it so that we can still charge a limited amount of search time so that requestors wont conduct fishing expeditions (say they get 2 free hours of search but then are charged for hours 3-10 and hours 10-20 are charged at a premium rate etc--and the charges can still be assessed after 20 days for any search above X hours) . We have to defend our searches, and must make sure they are thorough--it is far better if the requestor focuses--even say choosing 2-3 key staff to search with rather than searching a whole group--and then having to for example weed out duplicate records (same email string found in mutiple staff's email for example). If there were no fee, requestors would likley not be willing to focus. Again, the time to process these large requests is time taken away from the processing of requests from others who also seek records from their government and may have a more focused or reasonable request. Say 20 requests that are more focused could be processed to the benefit of those 20 reqeustors with the resources that it takes to process one large unweildy complex reqeust---how are we more transparent? At least fees can bring some balance in this situation. Maybe put a premium on complex requests..or charge a flat fee for simple requests and charge all reqeustor types all possible fees even after 20 days for complex requests...Reasonable reqeusts can often be processed within or close to the 20 day deadline and we can give good customer service. The large reqeuests becom< e exponentially more difficult. Imagine a reqeust where we have had to search with even say 6 staff members in their email for a particular responsive topic in a certain date range. We get 6 sets of responsive records--most likley voluminous becase requestors tend to focus on hot/important topics that have involved a large agency staff effort/involvment, that then need to be sorted, duplicate strings identifed or removed (for consistency of redactions) and then read word for word, if there are emails written by other agency components or even other govt agencies those portions need to be referred and accounted for--just the logistic become very challenging. At FDA we have a lot of b4 and b6 info that we are required by law to protect--so we need to read, review for disclosure, and then make redactions. Please do not remove any more fees and please even consider making changes that can help us with the processing of these large reqeuests--not for our sake, but for the fairness to all requestor--for a more transparent government/ FOIA fees are not necessary to the FOIA process I would set up a chart with pages numbers and price rates for all agencies. By clicking on the page count the fee would be generated.0 I have no issues with the current fee structure. no recommended changes! I do not think fees are necessary see comment above maybe flat rateJ If I had to choose a more linear process, then I would choose a flat rate.E I think we need continue charging fees for FOIAs that are processed. C Either use standard fees or get rid of the requirement all together( The fee structure doesn't need changing.x Again, FOIA fees are required by statute and any decision to eliminate or modify them would be a Congressional decision. There is so much that is not charged, you send the estimate for approval, and then the request takes much longer to process, many more pages than thought of, more man hours to review, redact and through legal reviews.G Ensure that the electronic forms are user friendly (both DD and eFOIA).\ Yes, apply initial processing fee then charge per page and do not exclude electronic copies. I don't know? if fees are to remain, recommend a higher cutoff before requesting the fee, for example set a threshold of $100 or more would require a fee anything less would be waived.H i believe the process currently in place works well for our organization Actually charge the researcher. Not sure Get rid of the fee categories and charge only for the copies of the documents plus a flat review fee. That way we wouldn't spend so much time calculating time spent on each action.a No, most requesters will ask for a fee waiver. They do not want to pay for their own information.9 Adopt the flat fee proposal for simple FOIAs which would generally generate 10 to 30 pages of responsive documents or be contained in 1 CD.
As FOIAs get complex, which require more search and review time, generates volumes of responsive documents, different fee structure could be proposed for such requests. Get rid of it...." I have no valuable input to this .R I don't think that they are necessary but I understand why there are fees charged. See item 7 explanationP All FOIA requests generate costs regardless of size and none should be waived. Senior leadership needs to enforce the importance of process FOIAs in a timely manner. Also, if the requester agrees to a certain amount, they should be held to it no matter what. If we do the work, they should be charged, even if they withdraw their request. Requesters could bring things to a big halt if they just submitted a lot of request and then after a certain time period they withdraw. A lot of unneeded work done.w As stated above - a flat fee for types of requests:
I.E - contracts have 1 price, accident reports have 1 price...etc. Requests done via electronic methods - free
Requests done via hard copy and significant research time - structured fee table, based on type of requestor& 0-1 hour Free
$10 per hour thereafterM Set rate through the 20 days, then back to the structure on the DD Form 2086. They are not necessary.s Waive fees below $50.00. Eliminate FOIA processing fees for "simple" requests and apply only to "complex" cases. v Fees are necessary. Fees decrease the volume of FOIA significantly. Numerous FOIA requesters do not want to pay fees.' No issue with the current fee structure} Strictly interpret the fee categories; for example, a news organization would be charged on requests for historical documents$ Make the 2086 easier to use for all.T Believe I answered this one in Questions 6 and 7 above and...I'm sticking with it!!! Don't think they are necessary . I think "all other" requesters should pay only for paper copies over and above the 100 pages (not for search), and leave the other categories as they are. Not sure.y nothing...if it is not broke, don't break it...again, the OPR must be honest about the fees are assessed to each request.t I think all requesters should pay fees and the minimum fee paid should be $15. We should not grant any fee waivers.L Simple requests = X $
Detailed requests = XX $
Multi-orgn requests = XXX $w I, personally, have not really experienced any problems with the current process during my career as a FOIA/PA and RSC. Eliminate FOIA fee waivers. Nearly every entity qualifies for the waiver, so they file frivolous FOIA's just to keep BLM personnel tied up answering FOIA's rather than performing their real duties. We receive massive numbers of FOIAs from a few requesters. Come up with a way to limit (or slow down) the amount of material one can request.$ Personally, I would eliminate fees. g Place more emphasis on the requirement for news media to meet both the criteria of media & news. Currently many bloggers claim news media when the information they are requesting in historical or in some other way fails to meet the definition of news in 5 USC 552 (information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public). Charging a flat fee Just delete it all together. I would base the fee structure on a reasonable average cost across all federal agencies and come up with a flat rate that, as close as possible, comes close to recouping the costs to repond to requesters. And, no free rides. The press and other requesters who currently do not pay fees should pay for labor and materials like everyone else - at a flat rate that does not unfairly target or give favor to one group over another.A A single fee for processing (versus search fee, review fee, etc.)d I do think fees are necessary to reduce the scope of requests to records requesters actually need. 6 I think the fee process is okay. Not a biggie for me. Require all FOIA requesters to agree to a minimum amount of fees or else their request will not be accepted or processed by the agency. The agreement to fees should be a mandatory part of the filing of a FOIA request. I'd say no fee to the interested public, reporters, commercial use requesters, etc. up to 25 pages. For larger request there could be a fee schedule set up based on the time and scope of the search and pages needed to respond. Anything over 50 pages would enter into this category. No change no change% Fees are not really a problem for NSA I would be inclined to leave the system as is, but replacing the requester fee categories with a uniform per hour and per page fee structure would make things easier to explain to requesters. 1-5 hours = $100
6-10 hours= $2-300
11-15 hours= $4-500
and so on.. prices are examples- no what I think they should be
X 1. We should be able to charge fees even if the FOIA isn't processed in 20 days. It is unreasonable to be penalized for not responding to large documenment requests within the statutory deadline when it is humanly impossible to do so. 2. Change the limitations in FOIA for those other than commercial requesters to permit more fee charging. ) The process seems to be holding up ok now I would recommend that DOJ/OGIS discuss with Congress, giving us back the right to charge fees even when we do not < m e e t t h e 2 0 - d a y d e a d l i n e . W h e n w e w e r e a b l e t o c h a r g e f e e s , r e q u e s t e r s m a d e m o r e r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t s a n d m o r e r e a d i l y n a r r o w e d t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r r e q u e s t s . A l s o , r e q u e s t e r s c o n s i d e r e d t h e c o s t s o f s u b m i t t i n g n u m e r o u s r e q u e s t s a n d e v e n s p l i t t h e m u p s t r a t e g i c a l l y t o a v o i d h a v i n g t o p a y s u b s t a n t i a l f e e s . W e n e e d t o g o b a c k t o t h i s b e c a u s e n o w a r e q u e s t e r w i l l a s k f o r e v e r y t h i n g b u t t h e k i t c h e n s i n k , b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o t r e p e r c u s s i o n s t o h i m / h e r d o i n g s o . T h e r e h a s n e v e r b e e n a p r o b l e m i n m y o v e r 2 5 y e a r F O I A p r o c e s s i n g e x p e r i e n c e , o b t a i n i n g e s t i m a t e s , c h a r g i n g f e e s , r e c e i v i n g a n d p r o c e s s i n g p a y m e n t s . Y e s , e l i m i n a t i n g f e e s w o u l d e l i m i n a t e h a v i n g t o d e a l w i t h f e e w a i v e r r e q u e s t s , b u t I d r a t h e r d e a l w i t h r e q u e s t s f o r f e e w a i v e r s t h a n t o t o t a l l y g i v e u p o n f e e s a n d d e a l i n g w i t h t h e r e q u e s t s w e a r e c u r r e n t l y r e c e i v i n g . $ Be stricter about fee waivers for media and non-profits. A lot of information is provided to the media, often at significant expense to the providing agency, that is never disseminated to the public. The media has little reason to narrow the scope of requests when they have to pay nothing. I think they are necessary for 3rd party requests, but not sure how to improve the process since I rarely receive 3rd party requests of a chargeable size.. N/A - I don't believe FOIA fees are necessary. Everyone should pay for the review and search costs. The ones that pay no costs or get a fee waiver usually tend to ask for a lot of records, often are not realistic regarding timeframe, and don't like to narrow the scope. The fees also need to be set for the entire govt. and it should properly accounts for the level of search and review - for my Dept., that cost is $46 an hour for GS 9-GS 14. $46 an hour is not enough for the level of search our attorney have to do and the level of review that I have to do.
Now that we're in the digital age, the agencies really should migrate to "digital" reviews. The digital records prep time such as scanning time and scan verfication time also needs to be built into the fees.
Instead of charging fees for an employee at grade level of a GS-15 who searched and reviewed documents, I feel when determining fees at the grade levels of employees who search and review documents, the threshold for the grade level should be no higher than a GS-13. Determining the hourly salary of staff gathering the info is time consuming, inaccurate and sometimes offensive/intrusive to the employee. Set a FLAT fee! na I would not change the process.% Charge a flat fee to all requestors.
I wouldn'tU fee structures should be available for requestors to view before request is submitted_ I would make the structure universal to all federal agencies and as easy to apply as possible. ;lapoieoi rwao 0o[ar [ Other than keeping up with the cost of processing and posting the increase/decrease annually, I can not think of anything more that would improve ... I don't think FOIA fees are necessary, but I would enable the agencies to receive a portion of the fees charged to improve or enhance its FOIA program. I think the fee system works fairly well as is, there is no charge for simple, less resource intensive requests, but there is a charge for complex, time consuming requests. I don't know Encourage a graduated fee scale* two categories - commercial and all others Institute flat rate fees.5 I would not associate the fees to personnel salaries.x Standard hourly rates across government for searching and duplication. Much time spent calculating specific hourly ratesf Fees are absolutely necessary. I can't think of a great way to change the fee structure at this time.D All FOIA requesters should be charged fees except private citizens. I think media requesters should be charged the same as other requesters, search and duplication. A great amount of time is expended on searches for media requests. g They should continued to be structured based on the grades of the person who is conducting the search. " More than 1,000 pages (flat fees). Don't really think fee changes are necessary. Fees are not what cause delay and backlog. Voluminous, complex requests and too little staff at agencies are the KEY, UNDERLYING issues with FOIA. From these, all other problems flow. Remove the fee resterictions since many searches require more than the 20 business day time period to locate and estimate the associated time and effort to locate the records.l Would recommend eliminating fees for "other" requestor category and charging a flat fee for commercial use. > Try to create a more uniformed way the determine the estimate. I would like to see the threshold for charging increased from $50.00. It seems like even most routine requests come very close to the $50.00 mark and it costs more than that to bill and receive the money.l $25.00 for requesters other than commercial. Continue to charge commercial requesters by time and position. Since FOIA fees are deposited in the U.S. Treasury and cannot be recouped by our Department, they have no positive impact on the processing of incoming requests. In our agency, we don't charge for scanning documents; however, providing electronic records reduces time spent in review, but that time isn't captured or passed on to requester. I might raise the threshold of when "other" requesters are charged, so they pay less. But I would lower the threshold for academic and media requesters to prevent "fishing" expeditions.? maybe eliminate a few of the categories and make two that could be structured as:
Non-profit (to include all cases where the requester will not receive any financial gain from the information in the FOIA request)
For profit (where FOIA requester will make some sort of financial gain off the information provided) It's adequate for my case level.
I don't know. Keep it as is. Enforce fees. Too often the FOIA office does not track the actual costs of fulfilling the request. It seems like the office simply wants to get the request completed and waives any fees. Make it clear when requesters go online to complete a request and have the fee determined as part of the request process online. The amount of papers, time, etc. is not known yest, but it is truly a guesstimate anyway. charge a flat rate Limit the amount of fees that can be waived in a single request. If a requester asks for the sky, it bogs the entire FOIA operation down, so the public doesn't really benefit since the agencies can't process the requests quickly, and the other requesters suffer, too.{ Don't think fees are necessary, maybe if the money collected would go back into the agency that would be a different story.P I would make one flat rate for search time, so the fees are easier to calculate. Fees are useful for those requests that require hundreds of documents and/or thousands of pages of documents to be provided. Those requests would completely immobilize this office for several months.7 standardize costs for search, duplication and review. C Charge fees to all requesters to include News/Media fee category. Clarify for agencies and requesters when fees are applicable and appropriate for various activities associated with search, review, document production and letter writing. P I would establish a range from minimal fee to the maximum for each < fee category.- I would not change the process fees for FOIA. fewer exceptions2 I do not have a problem with the FOIA fee process.. I wouldn't change a thing. Fees are my friend!L Building off the flat fee question above, perhaps it would be possible to build a kind of menu of prices: searching for one search term from one person is $10; searching for complaints for a 12 month period is $25; searching an entire bureau/office for one search term is $100, etc.
This would give requesters certainty on the front end as to what they'd be expected to pay. It would also mean that those requesters making very broad requests would pay more than those requesters with narrow requests.
It is likely that such a system is not possible absent a change in the statute.U I would leave the fee structure as it is now. However, I would increase copying cost I would ask that the preapproval fees for more than just a couple of records should be a minimum of $100.00. We waste so much time ascertaining costs for voluminous records when the preapproval was only $50.00. Either everybody pays or nobody pays. The sometimes excruciating extent organizations go to in order to qualifiy for fee exemption is time wasting and unproductive. As set FOIA fee foe all agencies charge moree Charge all requesters fees regardless of category and include processing time when calculating fees. Fees are necessary for commercial requesters and to keep the requests narrowly focused. Eliminating fees for commercial requesters and certain other requesters would result in broader and more numerous requests.U I do not believe fees are necessary to the process. I would abandon them completely.Z I do not think FOIA fees are necessary because most of the time it is not being collected._ Fees are not necessary to the FOIA process in that we do not receive a high volume of requests. Charge a much higer fee for all FOIA requesers. Why should non-conmmercial users get a pass on significant fees? Lots of "non-commercial" requesters are for profit companies any way.2 No fee waivers
Everyone should pay or none at all I believe a fee should be charged for all FOIA requests. A great deal of time and money is spent processing FOIA requests. Charging a fee, even a minimal fee on all requests would help reduce costs and backlogs. m Apply fee based on the volume of information to be processed as these require more time than simple requests.@ I really wouldn't change the process. It is fairly easy for me.$ I do not think fees are necessary. IO Let the agency that spends it resources implementing the FOIA to keep the fees.0 Raise the threshold for assessing fees (e.g. $100). Currently our agency's threshold is $15.00, which isn't worth collecting. There should still be an option to charge for special services/formats; e.g., if a requester demands paper instead of electronic media, or an agency has to pay to edit a video.0 Two categories: Commercial and noncommercial. X As I noted, all FOIA requesters should pay the actual cost of processing their requests.@ I would not change it, I think it works find just the way it is,_ I think the FOIA fees are necessary a lot of time is put into processing some of this requests. Eliminate fee wiavers.d I like the idea of a flat rate overall to assist those progragems that deal with many FOIA requests.B I do not believe that FOIA fees are necessary to the FOIA process. I think there should be a flat fee based on category of processed media and another category for duplication. Example: Editing of 1-10 videos at $10.00. Editing of 1-100 pages is $5.00. Each agency sets its own fee structure due to unique characteristics of its records and media used. Unless you develop a universal cost listing, I doubt there are any overall improvements.E I wouldn't change anything because it is not a concern at this level. flat fee Charge only if the requester requires that the file be printed and mailed out in hard copy AND also assess a relevant postal fee. The vast vast majority of requesters prefer to receive the file by email and no copying and postage fees are incurred in that process; so no charge should occur if there's no copying to paper for the requester & there's no mailing out of that file. I do believe that there needs to be a financial hardship exemption (such as in forma pauperis procedures used in courts) for relevant requesters. Certified requests should continue to have fees... you should increase that fee considering all the work that goes into the certification process. Unsure. I do not think they are necessary for the aveage citizen. Fees are necessary for the litigators (law firms, etc,) who try to use the FOIA system to try and get records for a potential or ongoing lawsuit. Not necessary to processa I like the idea of flat fees, but there should still be varying fees do to volume and complexity.~ I definitely agree FOIA fees are necessary. The hourly rate for professionals needs to be raised to $45 - $50 in lieu of $29.} I believe there should be a flat fee to file a request, and it should NOT be a trivial amount (i.e. not less than $25) to ensure that the requester has a serious purpose in making the request. In addition, requesters should be charged for search time, review time & reproduction or transmittal costs when the request produces more than a specified amount of pages (e.g. 50 pages). N/A
See! I just saved time!0 Not convinced fees are necessary to the process.& Make it consistent across the agencies{ All requesters are treated equally, and are responsible for paying in full for the actual cost of processing their request [ Everyone should have to pay for search time and review time. By page is not really an issue with the capability to provide electronic medium to the requester. One DVD can hold a whole boat load of documents, pictures, video, etc. Think of information quantity that is being processed with authorized redactions across multiple media formats. The FOIA person has to be very knowledgeable and computer savvy. The fees should go to pay for training the employees and getting more people to process the requests within the timeline established by the FOIA. Analyze the costs and charge accordingly. I would leave it the same but allow 4 hours of search free instead of 2 for those under the All Others category and 2 hours of search free for commercial requesters.I Charge at least a min. base fee on all FOIA requests over 1,000 pages, regardless if a fee waiver is approved or not. We spend thousands of dollars filling large requests for fishing expeditions which require subject matter experts to put regular work on hold to research information that may or may not be of use to the public. One flat fee for all FOIA request would be nice. The fee would not have to be anything outrageous. Five dollars per request would be reasonable. A caveat should be added that this amount can be changed as per congressional decision.` no, not sure where is the benefit since some many fall under the categories that are not charged@ I would not have a fee waiver. I think the criteria for a full fee waiver is very complex. Make it simple for the requester and agency. You can keep the different categories but with Agencies like "MUCKROCK.COM" ensure the policies outline if they are really considered News Media or just liaisons like FOIA Group
The question is whether FOIA should be free to the public, or to commercial requestors? Charge exactly as you are, but require agencies to charge fees or pay their own costs!= I would require most or all requesters to be subject to fees. The key is to REQUIRE payment prior to release of the documents - not the fee structure. A set fee or the current structure won't matter - most requesters expect to pay nothing. use flat fee structure but charge commerical requesters (including law firms and internet sites such as MuckRock) much more than academics or legitimate reporters. Charge more for duplication.( Creating a more simple computation form. I don't think fees are necessary to FOIA. With our technology age I believe we< are able to process request more efficiently and faster, which can be less expensive overall." I would make the FOIA 2086 SIMPLE,! Charge everyone a reasonable fee. All fees begin at the per hour of the processor. For example, a processor who earns 50.00 per hour, will process the case beginning at 50.00 per hour, pages 25 ppg\ I would apply a fee for duplicating only and eliminate the cost associated with search time. Please, No change Free to everyone except commercial requesters still pay the max amount. I would actually increase the cost for commercial requesters since their looking to benefit themselves and not the public. However, the public, especially the taxpaying public needs to understand that free is not really free and that processing FOIA requests cost time and money and in agencies with a decentralized FOIA program - FOIA duties can take an employee away from their primary duty. Z I would adjust the rates higher for requests with voluminous information to be processed.
don't know? Definitely would be easier if there was a set fee for people to have to pay. I think it should be more than $5 or $10 as it costs more than that of our time just to log it in! Most of the requesters that file with our Region all ask for fee waivers or are willing to pay $10, $15, or $25 or want it waived completely. They are necessary but tink there should be a just a processing cataegory. Do away with the difference in clerical,professional and executive hours just charge a reasonable hourly rate for search and review. I wouldn't change the structure.~ Let each agency keep all fees that it earns as part of the FOIA program. Fees can go into improving FOIA implementation, etc. I like the flat fee suggestion. One flat fee for individuals based upon the complexity of the request. Therefore, one fee for Simple and one fee for Complex. We also need the same setup for Commercial flat fee rates." set prices would be more effective( Streamline the current cost calculation Raise the de-minimus page and time allowances and require all requestors who exceed such de-minimus numbers to pay for such excess. This may require an aggregation of individual requests to avoid requestors merely splitting their requests to avoid the fees. Would cut out the categories and place everyone in the same category and set up the fees based on time searched, review, and duplication] Making it one flat rate would be acceptable, but increase it to reflect all processing cost. L Why can't they give the money to the Forest Service instead of the Treasury? N requesters should be charged some fees because they have no incentive to negotiate fees or to limit requests. Their requests take a tremendous amount of resources and it slows down the FOIA processing in our office. We should charge more fees for searches and redactions, which would cause the public to better narrow there requests to the really pertinent information they need/want. N.A.Y When you look at the dollars spent on FOIA vs. the amount collected, I would actually increase fees for "Other" requesters to include review time as well. We are essentially expending a great deal of time free of charge to "Other" requesters when in many cases their requests necessitate a review of numerous documents that can take many hours.~ Have a same fee category for everyone so we do not spend time to determine the fee category nor resolve complaints or appeals. I think that a generous government-wide standard ($50? $100? maybe?), below which no agency would charge fees, would be a useful thing for requesters and agencies alike. The flat rate fee should be based on the hourly salary rate of the employee processing the request. With fee waivers categories for legitimate requesters.r Fees can force a requester to determine what is really wanted and limit a request for a large number of documents. Eliminate the FOIA fee categories, and charge requesters one standard hourly fee for all time spent processing a request. The differentiation between types of time spent on a request (search, review, coordination) should also be eliminated. U charge more, and more often. Also charge Other requestors for all search and review. I would not charge any one.p Not sure, maybe a flat fee for private and media requesters. Commercial should still be charged per hour, etc. I realize fees should not be used to discourage requests but we waiste valuable resources when the custodian of the records spends several hours gathering/duplicate (or scanning)/reviewing instead of their normal duties I would eliminate fee categories and charge whatever applied to that request, whether it be clerical, professional, executive - search and reviews, etc. e That no matter what type of company the requester are, that everyone pays a fee no more "fee waiver".( Train the FOIA Officers and Specialists.$ Be more stringent on delinquent fees I do think that FOIA fees are necessary to the FOIA process, especially as it pertains to reviewing the thousand of pages of records.? Keep commercial requesters the same but accurately reflect and charge for FOIA staff's time spent administering the Act!
Reduce 2 hours of free search time in all applicable categories to 1 hour. Charge "All Others" for review time over 3 hours. Charge the other favored categories for review over 4 hours.
One category only for requesters, with a flat hourly rate. BUT, all FOIA responses should be posted on a website, so that access to previously-requested info is free and available to the public. With the more frequent use of technology available to conduct searches I would focus on the direct costs for agencies using discovery software to conduct FOIA searches. I support the flat fee. I would have rates consistent with all types of FOIA requestors, including Media and other favored groups. I would increase rates as follows and charge for administration time:
Reproduction = $1.00/Page
Search/Review/Administration = $52.00/hour (no need to have differentials in this area.)
FYI: Media requesters ask for more documents, take the most time, and 99% of the time are not charged fees. The amount previously collected by this office divided by the total number of requests in a given year would still be more than the $10 fee charged for all requests. So not charging any fee would be just as acceptable. But there should be a limit on the total number of hours any one office should spend on a search thereby forcing the requester to focus more on narrowing the scope of the request. FOIA Fees should be reflected on GS grade and Step, of the SME working on the pending FOIA request. Also. the collection of funds should be returned to the agency. FOIA fee determinations are only a small part of what we do, particularly given that most responses are electronic these days so we almost never charge duplication. I don't think fees are the issue in improving the overall FOIA processing for agencies. Truly, it is the time it takes to process many of these requests for contract documents that include thousands of pages to review for releasability. The average requester, and even those not handling FOIAs on a day-to-day basis really have no idea the process and time it takes to do a request for contract documents.E Two Categories :
1. All Other Requesters
2. Commercial Requesters I would eliminate either fee categories or fee waivers. It is confusing to have to deal with these two separate, yet often overlapping, issues. In addition, I would clarify the fee status of non-profit advocacy groups. d Get rid of all the categories except two. One category for most and the commercial use requester. Not sure fee structure based on pages. } Complex requests should incur more fees, the adminsitrative time spent on complex requests is no where near the actual fees. OMB could issue updated fee guidelines for the first time in 28 years, and be more proscriptive in so doing. This would better serve requesters so they wouldn't be navigating 96 different fee structures, and ultimately be easier for agency personnel.B eliminate fees for N r< equesters; keep fees for O and C requesters. I would change the structure and fees based on those that charge their readers to see the information and only charge those organizations. The matieral is often released freely but requestors such as Muckrock and Black Vault charge readers to view the information| Provide all requestor categories, except commercial, with an annual amount and deduct fees based on search and review times. Flat rate fee. charge flat rates' All request should have a min flat ratei Requesters who go on fishing espeditions for records should be billed and not given any free search time.
I'm not sure. no change necessary. FOIA fee should be waived unless the chargeable fee is substantial. For example: it would cost the government more money to process a $35 payment check that the fee itself. I like the idea of a flat fee, but maybe it should be based on number of pages reviewed-charge more for the review of 100 vs. 25. First, I would change it so that agencies get to keep their FOIA fees. This money could then be used to help fund positions within the agency to staff the FOIA program, pay for travel for training and reimburse program offices for time spent. Second I would standardize fees across the government, including adding a per page charge for douments and materials that are "born digital", e.g. $0.15/for paper or scan and $0.05 per page for digital copies. Thirdly, I would make commercial requesters pay the actual costs for employee time rather than the "average" that is used now. I would also establish some means whereby requesters could be classified as vexatious or harrassing, which would then allow agencies to either ignore their requests or put them at the end of the processing line or if that couldn't be done then give OTHER requesters two free hours of review time and then make them pay for the rest and only let media and educational/scientific be exempt from those costs unless they could prove they qualify for a fee waiver. I would change the way we charge other, educational, and media requesters. Some use us as their own research team, and that is not our may objective. Some requests are very costly, but we can't charge. K Yes, they are needed in order to recoup the time and effort of the requests< I would recommend implementing a more simplified fee system." I think the current process is ok. Set guidelines/standards for how we charge and how we communicate those charges, e.g., rule that requestor doesn't get any records until after they pay or specific fee agreement form they have to submit when making their request, etc. Have a flat fee5 Backlog must be reduced before fees should be charged' Have a set amount for all FOIA Requests> I don't have any suggestions to change the FOIA fee structure. I think that fees are necessary because I believe that many requesters misuse the FOIA for things like discovery, business profits. Also, to encourage requesters to narrow the scope of the records requested. An initial flat rate with adjustments to increase the charge based on volume and complexity would improve the FOIA process. This will weed out those requesters who are currently abusing the system and over burdening the FOIA offices. / Not enough experience to address this question. I would have a flat fee for all categories. The categories would not be divided by grade. It would just be one falt fee for professional and clerical. The duplication costs are fine the way that they are.a I wouldn't. I think the current structure is very fair and works well. I do think, however, that there should be a requirement that processors keep a written account of their processing time (how many processing/search hours are spent each day) and give that to the requesters with letter charging fees. This is something I require of my processors. I think that offices should not be penalized if they do not fulfill a request in the 20-day time period. Given some of the circumstances that preclude this, changing the time period to 20 days may be helpful to this process.V the public should pay for FIOA request just like they do under ordinary circumstances L I absolutely think fees are necessary. I agree with the flat fee structure. Standardize feesV I believe that a flat rate for specific types of FOIA requests made would be helpful. N I wouldn't change a thing. I think the fees that they are changing is fair. ' Charging a flat rate as proposed above. Fees are necessary in order to keep requesters from abusing their right of access. Serious requesters willing to pay a reasonable fee. When something is free it is wasted and abused--human nature. People are accustomed to paying for government services--this is not a radical concept. We simply need to make it less complicated to avoid disputes, etc. Some type of flat fee system should work.4 I would increase the fees for commercial requesters.k Flat fees are a good idea, it would cut down on the time spent figuring out time spent and materials used. OK now.x I think the charging of fees should change. If requestors (i.e.attorneys) are asking for information that they are going to charge their clients for profit they should be charged a higher fee. There are individual requestors that know how to get around the fee and they will send in requests every 6 months to a year (depending on the case) so they don't have to pay fees. flat fees I don't think that they are necessary except in the case of FOIA submission abuse where requesters are abusing the privilege of be able to use the FOIA process. Changing the FOIA fee structure will not improve overal FOIA processing. Agencies need funding and resources to improve processing. FOIA personnel need buy-in from Agency officials to ensure training is available for all employees, and sufficient resources are available.& Eliminate duplication costs, flat fees FOIA fees should be retained by office that processed the request but only for the documents that were actually released. This would seem to encourage open government.b To expedite the processing of FOIA requests, I believe requesters should pay 50% for requests estimated to cost over $ 500 instead of $ 250. The majority of the fees we collect are under $250 so I think we could expedite the process a bit by raising the amount to 500; that way we could begin processing right away once we get their willingness to pay. \ I would allow the agencies to provide rough estimates of the cost to the requestor. I would allow the agencies to respond by checking a box that estimates the cost, say from 50-100, 100-500; 500-1000; over $1000. I would enable the requestor to ask for additional/more detailed estimates only if the original is over a certain dollar threshold. 1. Yes fees are necessary to encourage requesters to focus on what they really want (if they had to pay for it) and only request what they would be willing to pay for. 2. Fee schedule should be updated to reflect current cost. 3. Clear guidance on how to determine if a requester should be granted a fee waiver, or reduction in fees, don't just grant it because they ask for it, or they say they will post it to the web. The FOIA program is a HUGE expense to the Agency that receives no funding from Congress. I understand we are a public agency, but believe we should be spending more money accomplishing on the ground activities, then providing copies of documents- sometimes hundred year old documents-because someone asks for a copy.The specialists within our Agency must conduct the searches an initial review for the responsive documents, they could spend their entire workday doing nothing but searching for responsive documents and never accomplish anything they were hired to do! I think the fees reasonably balance the demands on the agency while providing very limited demands on the requester. I wouldn't propose any changes. None at this timeR allow agencies to keep fees collected for use in offsetting FOIA processing costs. I think it works as is.s Change the fee structure to allow for the charging of fees for voluminous requests for all categories o< f requesters
no comment Since it's nearly impossible to meet the 20 workday processing requirement, fees are not collected, therefore I do not see fees as necessary.h Yes, I think that fees are important. But I don't really have any ideas on how to change the structure. I would eliminate them. I have no suggestions. 1. Remove the fee penalty - the fees as a penalty has not "forced" the agencies to process requests quicker
2. Charge everyone review charges
3. Some sort of flat fee
' There should be one flat fee for all requesters, regardless of the request. Media and school agencies should continue to receive preferential treatment. All persons requesting fee waivers should be required to show where the information is published for use to the general public. All time to respond to the FOIA request should be calculated and included in every FOIA request regardless of the outcome of a waiver so we can truly see the cost of responding to a FOIA request. All requesters, besides School and Media sources, should have to pay at least 25% of the cost of responding to the request. The fees generated by the Agency should also go back to the Agency in the form of mail room staff or equipment, paper, printers, or other supplies that make it possible to respond to these requests. : Let agencies keep part, if not all, of the fees collected.n Except for commerical requestors who might abuse the no fee structure, we should waive or elimiate all fees. , I would recommend
1. eliminating the fee for FOIA office review
2. impose search and review fees on media requesters for voluminous requests and include parameters for email searches that are considered "per se" voluminous--multi-year, multi-custodian, multi-keyword (except when keywords are used together, as in "sequestration plus attrition"). In the original floor discussion on fees for media requesters, one Senator stated that media have no incentive to ask for voluminous requests because reporters are all on deadlines; while this may have been true a few decades ago, this is not so today--consider, for example, investigative reporters, bloggers, watchdog groups, editorial writers and student journalists. Voluminous requests from media requests comprise the majority of our largest requests. C I think that the current fee structure strikes a good balance between the right of the public to obtain information and the obligation to pay for the services that you use and benefit from. Nevertheless, as reported in our FOIA Report, last year this agency collected less than 3% of the cost of processing FOIA requests. I would charge a flat fee for all requests, even for media requesters. If additional fees are required determined by scope of request, they can be included. This question assumes that fees harm FOIA processing. Fees are generally not an issue for simple requests. They are only an issue with complex requests and actually can help in reducing the scope and thus processing time of some requests. n Fees are necessary to the process because it is an important guideline in narrowing the scope of the search. I like the "flat fee" idea but it would need to be based on fee category and types of records sought. For example records that actually shed light on the gov't would be a smaller fee, someone wanting all records of emails sent by individuals just out of curiousity would be a higher fee and they would need to pay all fees charged with processing. We have too many requestor's seeking records that FOIA was never intended for and that is the biggest problem we have. Only allow the requester 5 business days to agree or narrow scope after given a cost estimate, or else they must resubmit or submit a narrower request.( I do not have a suggestion at this time.( Fees are not necessary...Eliminate fees! none Double commercial fees. Allow us to charge review and redaction fees for "other" requesters. We shoudl also be able to charge commercial fees for attorneys or law firms claiming they represent non-commercial interests. Charge everyone for all processing fees. No fee waivers for anyone. No reduced amounts for different categories of requesters. Everyone pays up front. f I would increase FOIA fees across all agencies and allow agencies to retain the funds from FOIA fees. I think it is pretty straight forward, maybe seperate the educational and news media. I really don't feel that with all of the information that is requested by the news media that they should receive as much as they do for free. I would simplify the fee structure so that if it is over 500 pages, one fee, over 1,000 another fee, and so on. Instead of calculating a formula.a I have not worked with the agency long enough to form an opinion on the processing fee structure.Q Yes, I think fees are necessary and I believe the current system is working fine.$ Charge more for commercial requests. see above3 increase the fee amount automatic waiver threshold They are not necessary Agencies like media and watchdog groups should be charged fees if above a certain amount. Many requests from these groups cost the agency thousands of dollars each time due to the size and complexity of the requests._ Set a yearly limit per request of a dollar amount of free fees, after which everyone pays fees.< Allow agencies/org to charge for ALL time spent processing FOIA requests. There are several hours spend on FOIAs that are not chargeable. However, the Gov is still incurring cost for that employee's time. Not to mention the extra time the same employee will have to work to get their primary duties completed timely. Flat fees or fees for everyone (including educational or media entities) would make it easier to determine when to charge fees vs. waive them. Yes but there is not enough space here. I would greatly enhance the cost for large corporations and parties requesting for profit I can/t answer that. Fees are necessary to cover the expenses incurred in copying records, it has nothing to do with whether or not the request is made citing FOIA. I think they do serve a purpose...filtering out frivolous requests. I know of requesters who file request after request and are able to dodge the "duplicate" issue by artful crafting of how they word their request. have a flat fee based on pages, ie. anything over 1000 pages is $100.00, anything between 500 and 1000 is $50.00, less than 500 is free. Omit having to calculate costs - have a set flat fee for each requester category, i.e. Favored: $10; Other = $20; Commercial = $75. Clarify media waiver exemption. Make it more public that fees are required. Each agency should charge fees. Too many waive almost all fees or don't charge. That makes those that do stand out and seem like we are doing something incorrectly.L Yes they are necessary. You just need more people to process FOIA requests.F Increase fees based on complexity of review of frequency of requester.y Fees are necessary. The inconsistent application of the FOIA fee structure is problematic, not the fee structure itself. I think pay.gov has made things way easier. I also like the idea of emailing documents for a reduced fee. instead of 15c per page perhaps 10c per page when emailed. I believe the current process for fees works if it is done right. However, I know that isn' the case most of the time. Maybe a full review of the use of fees by all agencies could shed some lighht on what needs attention.z I would try to bring FOIA fees into the reality of the digital age. Processing fees based on per page of paper is defunct. The fee structure works as isH I like the flat fee issue - for all. This will surely speed processing.@ FOIA fees for agencies who received a large amount of requests. Keep it the same.9 I defer to agencies that charge fees on a regular basis. T One flat fee for all scanning, copying, etc with direct fees applied as appropriate. most everyone now a days falls into the preferred category so there never really is anything to charge because of the fact that everything is sent electronically I do not think that a flat fee would be helpful for servi< ng the purpose of assessing fees, but uniform guidance from DOJ that applies to all agencies would be helpful, if possible.{ Make it easier to charge fees past 20 days. The HUGE cases we have always take more than 20 days and we can't charge fees. m yes, the effort to complete a case demands it and commercial requesters should not get information for free. unsureq How often are fees an issue for either the withdrawal of a request or the narrowing of its scope? Please explain:$ 10% of the requests that have a fee. Often1 The fees are not a big issue here at this agency.R We have never had a request actively withdrawn due to the fees being too high, nor have we been unable to reconcile the true target of the requester's inquiry with the requester's budget.
Once or twice a year, however, we do have a request that is closed for fee reasons. These administrative closings happen only when either: 1) a requester does not authorize fees or authorizes insufficient fees and then fails to contact our office after multiple requests to either authorize higher fees or narrow their request, or 2) when a requester refuses to pay the fees they previously authorized. m We may receive one or two requesters within a FY where we ask requesters to consider narrowing their request. Never A cost estimate is done almost every time based on the requestor not providing a max chargeable amount or us requesting the approval of our cost about 50 to 60 percent of the time. Most requesters don't want to pay alot so they withdraw or they don't need as much information as they initally request and narrowing the scope saves them money and saves them from receiving unwanted information. Fees are a 1 in 6 reason that a requestor withdraws their request, because they do not know for sure how much it will cost. If a price table could be posted on the Sites, the requestor could estimate what to expect before even asking for the information. Maybe 60% of the time
Occasionally.$W e d o n t h a v e t h a t m a n y w i t h d r a w a l s , o n l y 9 i n F Y 1 4 , a n d 8 i n F Y 1 3 . F e e s a r e a n i s s u e i n a b o u t 1 5 % o f o u r r e q u e s t s ( t h i s p e r c e n t a g e i s s m a l l e r t h a n t h e 0 - 9 % i n q u e s t i o n 5 a b o v e [ p e r c e n t a g e t h a t r e s u l t i n t h e c h a r g i n g o f f e e s ] ) d u e t o l a t e n o t i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , m i s s i n g s t a t u t o r y t i m e l i m i t s . 4 Fees may occasionally encourage narrowing a request.Z Fees are an issue in withdrawals or narrowing of requests less than 0.05% of the requests./ 10% of cases either withdraw or narrow request e Seldom; a commercial requester making a request that generates voluminous pages may decline to pay. " I have not had an issue with this. Very little Sometimes narrowing a request does not reduce fee search time. As a result, the requester is annoyed after they narrow a request that does not result in fee reduction. never an issue.0 I believe it's often an issue for the requester. Sometimes requesters are not away of how much work would be involved in producing all of the applications to a particular grant program so they narrow their request to applications from a particular state in order to avoid fees.
Sometimes. Occasionally. As previously stated most non-profit qualify for a fee waiver and rarely narrow their request even when voluminous in nature. q i am guessing maybe 30% of the time. Commercial requestors, especially attorneys involved in litigation, or companies wanting competitors info, often have deep pockets. If the processing is wildly expensive, in the 10s of thousands or beyond, they may negotiate scope. Sometimes Consumer requestors that require large searches will limit to just their 2 free hours. ; They are not an issue, as AFOSI does not charge FOIA fees. We currently don't charge fees. None not very often Many requester do not understand the reason for charging fees. A large amount of time is spending during the FOIA process advising requester of the need to discuss fees Normally this is very effective. Scopes are generally narrowed once the requester is aware of charges associated with their request.x Extremely rare in our case. We have had only one fee issue in 10 years over a withdrawal or the narrowing of its scope.E During my short time no FOIA request has been withdrawn due to fees. Rarely - it was more work on me to send the requester an additional letter to ask them to identify that they would or would not pay the fees Very rarely.^ This is not something that we track, but it is something frequently discussed with requesters. Frequently. Some requesters think they should receive free and when it is going to cost, they withdraw, narrow the scope works with the larger firms who place requests for a living. More so narrowing; contracts can be voluminous & include modification plus attachments. Nobody thinks of the personnel who have to review them.g We are not here to make profit but sure we'll be glad to charge requesters for all our effort and time. Not been an issue for me.
no issues " not often, most are willing to pay] Very little. However, many feel that no matter how much they request, it should all be free.! At the Wing level not very often.$ We have not had any issues with feesw None, to avoid paying, they will make 2 requests;
1. get A-M on the first request
2. get N-Z on the second request. When confronted with a high dollar amount in terms of fes, Requesters know they need to narrow their requests.
At times, they withdrew their request and submits a simplier one.C Almost always requires a narrowing of scope...and MORE time wasted.J I have not seen any fee issues since I've been dealing with FOIA requests." We haven't received any fee issues See item 6 explanationo In my current job, I haven't run across this yet. It is getting the requester to set a limit at the beginning. Not very often for us. Rarely5 They would certainly narrow the scope of the request!
2 out of 5 It has never been an issue.P I don't see a fee issue with withdrawals and have not had any requests narrowed. At least 5 times a year. rarely I cannot speak to this question. Hasn't been an issue in my area of responsibility...yet; however, I know that one day it probably will for which I don't really look forward to after hearing bad issues from my counterparts! less than 5% Rarely if ever. Very rarely Not very often....U Rarely. If a requester really wants something then they are willing to pay the fees. none to date for our office This organization receives numerous very extensive and time-consuming requests and having the "processing fees" assists with getting the requesters to understand the somewhat exhaustive searches that must be conducted in order to attempt completion of some of the request. Knowing fees will be charged gets the attention and provides grounds for open discussion as to what is really wanted. Only once in the past 3 years., Not at all. Our agency doesn't charge fees. A requester will ask for the world and be surprised that he has to pay for copying. He thinks he should get everything at no charge just because. We have never had this issue. However, for larger scoped requests, we will contact the requester to narrow the scope of the request to help processing time. Most requesters are willing to pay fees and understand this should not be placed on the taxpayers for something they want. When the fee waiver is denied and explained, most agree to pay fees. However, some consistently try to avoid paying fees by submitting multiple requests hoping they will not be aggregated or claiming news media for information that does not meet the definition of news. Not often Never have an issue with fee's. Not really an issue. Narrowing the scope will of course reduce the fees for those who are actually charged, but the cost is not usually a factor in narrowing scope - getting responsive document< s in a timely manner is usually incentive enough. Our office does not receive a large volume of requests, and even these do not generally generate a fee that would impact the requester's decision to accept or decline to pay. In my experience, requesters are always reasonable when asked to narrow the scope. Part of it is explaining the process to the requester; they ask very broad questions when in reality they are interested in a specific topic. Minimal or no issue.Q 50% of time. Attorneys like to use it for discovery but they don't want to pay. T About 50 percent of the time. If its too expensive the requester doesnt want to pay. Fees are paramount in creating incentives for the requester to narrow the scope as I described in my reply to a previous question. Charging fees helps the Agency by reducing the time and staff necessary to fulfill a requesters request for unnecessary/voluminous documents. Rarely. Large scope requesters in my experience are commercial use requesters and attorneys, and they often don't care about the cost....Z Requesters feel they shouldn't be charged fees for what they consider "Public Information"" minimal, less that 5% of the time Good communication between agencies and requesters early in the process about the potential fees to be charged is critical for good customer service. Once customers understand that broad requests have a cost, they quickly narrow the scope to focus on what they really wanted. Narrowing = Often; withdrawal less frequently. We try to find some documents that can be provided to a FOIA customer at very low cost so they can get some information.^ I don't know, I have a lot of file where a fee is requested and no response has been received. If a request is withdrawn and we have not provided an interim response, then we would not charge the requester fees. If an interim response, releasing documents has been provided, then charging fees is appropriate. When a requester narrows the scope of his/her request, it often results in less search hours, less review time, and less documents being released. So, fees would be less than had they pursued the fully scoped request. Very often. But I would rather spend the time working with the requester to develop a reasonable request, that process thousands of pages that often get withheld in full. It doesn't happen often for me, but it has caused a couple requesters to withdraw their request due to the cost of processing a large amount of documents. Rarely - processing time is much more likely to result in narrowing the request. Withdrawal of requests has typically only hinged upon the availability of records. From my experience (10 years), perhaps about 20-30% of the FOIA requests might get cancelled because the FOIA requester does not agree to pay. And yes, these cases tend to be bigger cases that usually number in multiple boxes of responsive records. In my experience, there hasn't been many issues. The requester narrowed the scope with not much hesitation. There has been an occasional requester that withdrew who wanted a voluminous amount of documents and wanted them for free. often Not very often. Less than 20%. Not Applicable.. not often, maybe in 5 FOIA requests out of 1006 regularly requestors narrow the scope for fees issues 13%
oaw oiawrooa Once in a while we get a request that is asking for the sun, stars and moon, but we call or write explaining the time and fee's to process a request like that, and find just through the conversation that he/she truly does not need all that was asked for. The response more times than not is 'after readying "what to request" on your FOIA page, I thought, I better as for everything.....'o Fees are never an issue for withdrawing requests, but are always an issue for narrowing the scope of requests.[ Very rarely, the time it takes to receive the requested information is much more pertinent. zero 99% of the time 100%
Fairly often. It is often an issue. Requesters don't often understand that an extensive search for "any and all" documents relating to a topic takes a great deal of time and effort. It is not an issue. Requesters have the opportunity to make a determination approximately how much money they are willing to spend.Requesters are provided with cost estimates. Not an issue* Sometimes the requester will withdraw their request if they feel the fees exceed what they're willing to pay. On the other hand, fees that exceed the required threshold a requester is willing to pay, gives them an opportunity to narrow the scope of their request to meet their informational needs. not often Fees are integral incentive in motivating requesters to ultimately state what info/records they truly need/want, rather than asking for "any and all" records under the "just in case" philosophy of filing a request. The cost associated with fees usually is a reality chack for the requester of the scope of the request and is the statute's only teeth to enforce reasonable searches upon requesters.: Started OSMRE in January 2015 but this far has no impact. Once in a while.{ Fairly often. This is the only tool we have show some requesters exactly how immense and over burdensome their request is. Often may be half the time.W I think fee estimates play an important role in every request that does not seem to be routine/normal at the onset. It does give the agency some leverage to enter into a dialog with the requester over refining the scope of "complex" and "exceptional/voluminous" requests and the amount of time it will take the agency to produce the records. Less than 1%{ One percent, or less, of the total volume of requests received have an impact on either case withdrawal or scope reduction. About 25-35% of our requests are narrowed or withdrawn for fee reasons. We have a motto "if the request seeks 'any and all' requester gets a call." never! Have not experienced these issues Often. Most requesters put a limit on what they will pay. So any estimate has to keep that in mind and then address it once the estimate is made. Takes time. Happens to most FOIA requests.
Not often. We never request fee payment.B Sometimes, when it is not clear if the requester is exempt or not. Just estimating 25% of the time. We don't keep stats on this. Requesters who don't know what they want when they make their requests tend to withdraw their requests when estimated fees are high. It really depends on how much the requester wants the information. Most of the time, requesters agree to pay the estimated fees. Since scope can be an issue even when fees are not an issue, this is a difficult question to answer accurately. not an issue one or two requests a yearS Fee estimates often result in reduction of scope, requests are not often withdrawn.a Less than 10% of requests submitted to our agency are withdrawn due to fees or narrowing in scope Fees are an issue or come into play in about 10 percent requests received, and result in the withdrawal or narrowing of the scope of requests.2 The more the fees, the narrower the scope becomes.% often result in a narrowing of scope. Darned near 100% of the time. And "withdrawal" is not what happens -- requesters often simply abandon their requests without response to fee estimates.s It has been my experience that a requestor will narrow their search in order to reduce processing and reseach cost.s We often use fee issues to get a requester to narrow the scope of a request. Requesters are often unaware of the time involved and costs associated with processing a request - many opt for simply using the two free hours of searching rather than incurring any additional costs (which, at our agency, can run over $80/hr for a GS-15 staff member to search their records).Q Very often. Most requester will withdraw their request if fees becomne an issue. About 10 percent of the time. X Rarely, but some individuals do occasionally seek voluminous records that require data runs and meta-data searches that are costly to the agency and which the requester has no clue as to the effort involved and the expense incurred to satisfy the< request. Raising fee issues has helped to narrow requests to a more reasonable search parameter. We routinely recommend that requesters narrow the scope for voluminous requests whether or not the requester has submitted a fee waiver justification so that we can process requests more efficiently and timely, however, it rarely results in a narrowed scope. 3 Most will withdraw the request if a fee is an issueb on the complex cases alot. some ask for 8 or 9 years of documents involving 50plus thousand pages~ It can be most time, but if someone wants what they are requesting they are already prepared to pay the amount that is given. quite often fees help keep the scope of a request narrowed. if no fees are chargeable, I can see requesters asking for a lot more information. Not often at all. Never. I do not know.o Very often - We use fees frequently as a tool in negotiating with a requester to narrow the scope of a request. none in our agencyM Not an issue with the request of an A-file, but often an issue with requests in SIG. Requesters often have no idea of what they want, where to locate the documents or the complexity of the request. Often, when explaining the fee cost involved in their request it helps to narrow the scope or facilitate a withdrawal of their request. Occasionally requesters will narrow their request to avoid excessive fees, however the Commission usually waives processing fees and requesters are usually willing to pay reasonable fees for their FOIA requests. The requests that require extensive research (which are few), the fees become an issue for the requestor and lead to narrowing of scope Never and issue. It would be the majority with "commercial" and "all other" use requestors. For media/educational use and deep-pocket requestors, time is the factor.W Less than 5/yr
We rarely have commercial requests or requests for high-volume records. Not very often; but the fee structure has been a helpful tool at times in limiting the scope of commercial requests for contract information. Occasionally, I have had commercial requesters drop or narrow requests when they found out that it would cost them thousands of dollars to process them. Not that often, very seldom. not an issue at all. small percentage^ Not an issue for my program as we rarely have FOIA reques, especially ones that require fees. . I have not had this issue in the past 5 years. At my organization fees become an issue when processing video recordings or events (gate entrances, child care centers, and other monitored locations on board the installation. More often for narrowing a request into the realm of reasonable. Requests are withdrawn when the requester cannot or will not rescope.? I haven't heard of any issues with the fees from the requester. hardly ever - may 2% of the time
Don't know5 Never. Part 1: If a requester withdraws the request, there's no file to copy and therefore no EEOC costs incurred. Part 2: narrowing the scope? Who does that ?! Unless you have someone that's on a huge fishing or research expedition not related to a specific EEOC Charge(s), EEOC requesters want the entire charge file about the charging party's charge(s) against their employer....... there's nothing to narrow in the scope in that scenario. A fishing expedition requester might be charged research fees but we have a fee structure in place for that type of work.T In the past, requesters have narrowed the scope of a request based on fee estimates. About 30-40% of the time. My experience none. This usually only occurs on voluminous records, most individuals try to avoid high fees and ask for the files electronically or on a disk. I sometimes have issues with FOIA fees being collected, then the requester cancels their request. The withdrawals don't occur that often to be an issue.0 I don't know. I haven't dealt with this aspect.L Fees are an issue. I can get the requester to narrow the scope without fees. Less than 5 %.( In approximately 35 percent of the cases
30% of cases Never as the current policies and law is written. The state agencies have started charging for everything but the federal level is a freebie so why narrow the scope. Especially reporters who are fishing and expecting to catch a Pulitzer. y Very often. For voluminous FOIA requests that drain an agency resources, we can get requesters to narrow based on fees. not very% I would estimate that 50% of the time Often requesters are willing to narrow a request when they are notified of the cost and time it will take to fill a large request, which helps both requester and office provide the information quickly; None that I can recall.
not too often; 10% of my request have narrowed it's scope due to the fees. Sometimes. Contracts are large and most of the time the requester has no idea. Once we provide them with a cost estimate they start to narrow the scope. R An issue? In what sense? Few requests are withdrawn, not many more are narrowed.n Few are charged fees. Of those that are charged, perhaps these issues are relevant for one third of requests. Don't know. enough to incur sigificant wasted time/salary, since requesters only withdraw after agency processing reveals how many pages are releasable. 20 % No issue. For our office neverI For large contracts it does cause requester to withdraw do to the amount.] Not much of issue. We don't charge many requesters. Most time they withdraw, not narrow it. none. They all will pay. GeeshR Fees are rarely an issue with the requests received at Legal Services Corporation. Not much maybe 10% I would say that it is quite often because some requesters want to know how much it will cost to go forward with a request and also ask that their request be narrowed to only have certain information compiled to cut costs. never in my experienceA I think it varies, depending on the type of requests you receive.L Sometimes. If a request is overly broad, fees can help focus the requester.S 10% of the time as many requesters want information, but do not want to pay for it.$ Have never had a need to charge fees 50%Z This is many times the case. However, the issue is generally less about ability to pay for what they want and more about not knowing what they want until they actually understand what is actually available. There needs to be some mechanism that forces requestors to engage in some modicum of research before they just blindly request documents. Not that much of an issue@ Often, once a requester is told the cost, they limit their scope In the majority of our cases, fees are always an issue when narrowing the scope. Most requesters will narrow the scope to reduce the cost.
Once a month. Very often. Requesters are often willing to negotiate to a reasonable set of documents instead of asking for all documents that might touch on a particular topic. Often fees are the only tool we have to prevent the misuse of the FOIA process. Without fees, there is no incentive to narrow a request to information that is really relevant. ] Requesters will narrow a request when faced with estimated costs for searches of documents. U Very often. Fees are a positive impact a good percentage of the time, because they keep the requester focused on only the records they really want, rather than just including everything because they don't have to pay for it. I would literally have to increase my staff to handle many more or larger requests if fees are reduced in any way. When we inform the requester regarding fee estimate and the requester has to pay before we proceed with the processing, they do not reply back after the 30 days suspense we give the requester. Fees are one of our major issues when requesters contact our Public Liaison Office. Most often the requesters believe the fee assessments are high and their fee category should be in news media category especially when they have a blog or write some article 1-2 times for the news media. Only a of times -- fewer than a dozen -- in the time I've been doing FOIA here. But for the times that fees have been an issue for narrowing s< cope, it's saved us countless hours.q Fees are never an issue for legitimate requesters due to most requester qualify or justify a fee waiver request. When we receive a request for a large number of documents, we have successfully worked with requesters to limit the scope of a request and thus reduced fees. Around 5-10 times annually.W Sometimes, not often enough, because our principal offices do not follow up regularly. Often, a lot of requesters ask for everything and anything on a contract or weapon. When they find out that fees are involved, the request is narrowed or withdrawn. I cannot say. most of my requests are backlogged and I should be charging a fee, but now that we are not suppose to charge if we cannot respond within 20 working days I have to waive most of my fees< Very rarely because the public knows we dont charge much due to length of processing times that cant be minimized (contracts and the required submitter notice process/release over objections process). The problem is so bad, that companies (ie FOIA Group) are making money off of a virtually free government service. I find that fee are useful for those FOIA that are very broad and the requester needs to narrow the scope since the large fee amount usually scare the requesters Two or three requests a year.` Fees help determine if a requester is serious about the request or just trying to be problematic Not frequentn Withdrawal b/c of the charging of fees - never.
Narrowing of the scope - frequently on voluminous requests! Very often. Somewhat frequently. Quite often an issue as the average requester either under estimates the time required to process or omits the obligation to pay.A Very Sledom. Approimately 2% are closed relative to Fee issues. 15%< Ten percent of Fee are either withdrawal or narrowing down. Charging/negotiating fees provides significant incentive for commercial and other requesters to narrow the scope of their request. Many requests are narrowed and even some withdrawn once a fee estimate is given. This has helped in many cases to lighten some of our already heavy FOIA workload. Very Rarely Rarely.* We are not a good sample, frew FOIA cases.R not many, it helps to narrow the scope of the requst but not usually a withdrawal. About 50-75 percent of the timel Fees quite often lead to narrowing of the scope at this agency, but rarely lead to withdrawal of requests. frequently at my agency Normal requestors, request specific documents and know what they want however, requestors that are "fishing" tend to be much more difficult and refuse to narrow their scope. Sometimes its impossible to find all of the information that they are requesting. Fairly often. I have also had media requestors tell me that they are no longer working on the subject but it's free so they want to keep the case open anyway. We are not currently assessing fees due to short staffing - we are unable to spend more time than absolutely necessary to process a request. Fees usually do not result in a withdrawal for our component. They have been helpful in narrowing the scope of a good portion of the requests for which fees are assessed, or at least prioritizing certain records.- just time consuming of figuring the fees out. used, but not oftens Many. The price can open negotiations on the scope of the request and then we as an agency appear non transparent. On several occassions. Very seldom are fees responsible for the anrrowing of the scope. I have not had a request withdrawn based on the fee associated with the request. Not at all. About 25% Very often. For example, I had one from a group that wanted every document relating to cats. However, after a preliminary search of the e-mail revealed that the search term cat was so broad that it would resulte in almost 1 million results for an estimated 2-4 million pages of copies, the requester finally agreed to a narrowed scope, which was still more than 40,000 records in size. Without those estimated copy costs, the requester would have been unlikely to narrow their request. about 50% of our requests. SometimesX Fees are often a useful tool in getting requesters to limit the scope of their requests." Not often, maybe 1 out 4 requests. I have a large amount of requests from one requestor who has a fee waiver. Of the rest of my requests, most of which are "all other" and quite a few "commercial", about 50% are influenced by the fees, especially "commercial" I do not handle the fees portion
Very Often The charging of fees has not been an issue in my organization b/c I very rarely charge fees b/c the requests I receive do not take up a lot of time to process. l I only see an issue if the requester has paid in advance and there is the need to reimburse the requester. 7 Fees are rarely charged across the federal government. M For my installation, we have less than 2% withdrawals or narrowing the scope.] Very often are fee issues stem from voluminous requests. After we provide the requester with an estimate of costs they will come back and narrow the scope of the request which generally takes care of any fee issues. The other fee issues we have are when they submit a non-perfected request because they do not have a willingness to pay statement. $ I've only had 1 requester withraw a request due to fees throughout my 15 year FOIA career. For the vast majority of requesters, being faced with fees makes them think a little more about what it is they actually want so that they narrow their requests to more efficiently get what they need.6 It seems to be an issue for all commercial requests. < i am speaking to these issues based on my previous involvement with fee issues. Narrowing the scope brought about some issues. Some requesters think since they amended their request, they should not be charged the same fees. It is not as easy as that. There are more than one issue to consider in accessing fees.) all the time if the request is legitamateX I have never experienced the withdrawal or narrowing the scope of a request due to fees. Never in my experience It happens from time to time and this sometimes pushes requesters to narrow the request to the pertinent information being requested instead of the catch all requests that are submitted.? There seems to be no problem with the fees they are be charged, Requesters get serious about precisely what they want when there is a cost associated with the request. If there is not cost, they want any and all and everything associated with their issue from the beginning of time, etc. Agencies have a duty to respond to lawful FOIA requests. Requesters should have a duty not to waste limited agency resources. One or two needy, self-centered, conspiracy-minded, FOIA requesters can consume more than their fair share of limited agency resources thus creating backlogs for other FOIA requesters, etc, etc. The "requester community" will squeal about this perspective but it is a fact. Must find a way to deal with overbroad fishing expedition requests.0 Often. Especially with Commercial requesters. a There have been times that the requester narrowed the request because of the large fee involved. Small percentage of the timez I don't know percentage, but probably true of almost all requests that seek "any and all information" about a given topic.R I only charge fees for very few FOIA requests that are from commercial requestors.
less than 10%_ Not much of an issue at all. I have only encountered 2 requests where fees have been an issue. We do not discourage requesters on the basis of fees, so they seldom withdraw. This usually occurs when the requester thinks there are no such thing as FOIA fees. We ask requesters to narrow the scope of requests only to provide a more timely response, and search only for records they really want. This results in a reduction of FOIA fees. Very rarely does a requester reduce the scope because of a fee estimate. Difficult to estimate. t In our office, the withdrawal rate is very low as-is the fees being the reason to narrow the scope of their request. rare< { Always. They are useful to the agencies, none of whom are staffed to deal with FOIA requests at the record-holder level. This is the only tool we have to encourage a requester to narrow the scope of their request. They ask for "any and all" in almost every request. The thought that they may have to pay for such a burdensome overbroad request is the only tool we have to encourage them to focus on what they really want. Doing away with the fees will be a TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THE AGENCY in search and review time and this all equates to money! It has never resulted in the withdrawal of a request I've worked on. It has helped requesters narrow the scope of the request several times (a handful of times each year). not an issue, 1 Somewhat and this question should be directed at the requester. Fees keep the requesters from casting a wide net hoping something of interest will be caught in the bounty. Having fees puts the onus on the requester to be specific, no fees or a minimum fee, will open the gate to "just give me everything"
Frequently- can't remember a time when this was an issue. Almost always. If I tell a requester that the request will incur in excess of $250, the requester almost always (90% of the time) will narrow the request to keep the cost down.fW e a r e a b l e t o u s e f e e s o f t e n i n o u r v o l u m i n o u s r e q u e s t t o g e t t h e r e q u e s t e r t o n a r r o w t h e i r s c o p e . W e h a v e h a d r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n f o r d o c u m e n t s o n p r o j e c t s t h a t s p a n f o r d e c a d e s . I n t h e r e q u e s t , i t u s u a l l y s t a t e s a n y a n d a l l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e f r o m 1 9 9 0 t o 2 0 1 4 ( e x a m p l e ) a n d i t s a c o n t e n t i o u s p r o j e c t . T h e r e q u e s t e r m a y a c t u a l l y o n l y w a n t d o c u m e n t s t h a t h a v e t o d o w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l o f a c t i o n a n d n o t r e a l l y e v e r y t h i n g . B u t t o s e n d t h e c u s t o d i a n s o n a g o o s e c h a s e t o t r y t o c o m p i l e a l l o f t h e s e d o c u m e n t s m a y c r e a t e h o u r s o f s e a r c h , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e f i l e s e x i s t i n m o s t l y p a p e r f o r m a t a n d r e q u i r e s s e a r c h t h r o u g h b o x e s i n f i e l d o f f i c e s , a n d t h e n c o p y i n g f e e s . W h e n w e k n o w i n a d v a n c e t h a t a r e q u e s t m a y b e v o l u m i n o u s , w e a s k f o r t h e D D f o r m 2 0 8 6 s i m m e d i a t e l y , a d v i s e t h e r e q u e s t e r o f t h e p r o j e c t e d f e e s , a n d i n m o s t c a s e s t h e y r e p l y w i t h a r e d u c e d s c o p e . . Fees play a big part in narrowing of requests.e 15% of the time, usually with requestors such as MuckRock and other aggregators of government records In my experience, fees are rarely the reason for withdrawal of a request, but very commonly are the reason for narrowing. In the vast majority of cases, I introduce the topic by explaining the fee structure to the requester and then offer to work with the requester to get the most useful information for his money. A sizable percentage of requester volunteer right away, "Well, I really only need...." x Fees are rarely an issue leading to the withdrawal of a request, but they are an issue that helps to narrow a request. K They are not usually an issue that requesters would withdraw their request.v The question here should not be how many or how often, but should focus on time saved not having to conduct burdensome searches. The time spent is a much more important issue than the number of requests. Just for numbers, about 45 percent of our requests were complex, and I estimate that in half of those cases fees became an issue, so maybe 20 percent of all requests. % I don't know answer to this question.m Rarely an issue for us. Most requestors that legitimately need records are commerical or media requestors and they will pay fees as appropriate (or have no fees charged for media normally). Commercial requestors will narrow the scope of their request in order to avoid paying high fees for the review time. "All Other" requestors don't get charged for review time and the search time is rarely over 2 hours but you may discover 4,000 pages of records through computer searches which now require review (estimate 40 pages per hour for 4,000 pages and you have 100 hours of time spent just reviewing records to remove PII primarily) - that was not the intent of FOIA and we spend a lot of money processing these cases, and those are the biggest complainers calling and being rude to staff because it is taking too long, or making Congressional complaints for slow processing. About 30% of all requests. 3 out of 5 times. 8 For withdrawal of a request, not very often. Like I said above, the requesters have figured out how to get themselves a fee waiver. For narrowing of a request, about 99% of the time...requesters don't want to pay the Government so they figure out how to get what they want within the 100 pages/2 hr free limit.* sometimes, usually if request is too broad 75% of the time if not more. If you've ever worked on FOIA matters, the terms "any and all records" is ridiculous and unreasonable for FOIA resources to cover, and fees HELP us illustrate that to requesters.& Not often enough to make a difference. five out of 10 at my agency. L They have helped quite a bit in my District with the narrowing of the scope. Depending on the amount of records they want and if it is from a commercial requesters they might decide not to do the request if it costs too much. I think that it happens often, I think requesters don't want to be charged more than around $200 so they will limit their request or cancel it depending on the chargeF Often fees encourage the requestor to narrow the scope of the request. 20-25%. The fees force the requester to really think about what she/he is looking for and helps eliminate fishing expeditions - which waste all parties time and effort. ` Not an issue, it's more like fees help me get requesters to narrow the scope of their requests. Y Hard to tell. Most requesters don't realize the amount of work involved in responding to some requests. If the requester realizes the cost could be significant, they will often times narrow the scope or even withdraw their request. This is the only way to make requesters realize the amount of work that goes into responding to some requests. Never for us\ Often requesters will narrow the scope of a very large request simply because of the fees. I don't have any statistics. A small percentage of the time, roughly <10%. Requesters will withdraw requests due to fees. However, most of them will pay the for the records.H Sometimes it is the determining factor to process a FOIA request or not. I do think some researchers will narrow the scope of their request once they learn of our fees--minimum mail order fee of $20 for the first 1-25 pages, plus 80 cents per page thereafter. It encourages them to focus their request.P A big issue. It's important for requesters we have to keep costs close to zero.) In a majority of the requests we receive. In my experience, for Other requesters, when fees are assessed they play a significant role in narrowing of scope or withdrawal. Fees are not as much an issue for requesters in the favored or commercial categories. 20 to 30 percent of all requests are affected by the fee estimate in some way. Many are withdrawn. Several cut or narrow requests.F Frequently, fees lead to withdrawal of a FOIA request or narrowing it. Almost half time. 10%B Fees are usually an issue when dealing with commercial requestors. in or office not often. If someone wants their file they usually understand their will be a< fee associated with it and mention it in their request first hand. Often. Unfortunately, far to often requesters ask for everything under the sun and sometimes a fee estimate is the only way to encourage them to make a realistic request." For commercial requesters - 100% c I believe that 80% of our requests request fee waivers - so both the subject issues are applicable.} Only ever charged 1 fee since I started handling the FOIAs. The requestor did greatly limit the documents that she wanted. C over 50%. Too many people believe that asserting a fee category means being granted a fee waiver. When a requester understands they are not granted a waiver of fees for any and all, in many cases they will either withdraw their request or narrow the scope to just those items they truly want - not everything in the files.' it helps with the narrowing of requests Never 50/50 5% withdraw, 95% narrow the scope.It's very effective in forcing requesters to narrow the scope. Even when we don't end up charging the fee in the end (due to processing delays beyond our control). less than 5% of the time. . less than 5%, but it helps to focus the search^ Are there any other FOIA issues or topics that you would like us to address in future surveys?$ How to promote proactive disclosure.1 ) F O I A C o n s u l t a t i o n s O u r a g e n c y e x p e n d s a s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t o f F O I A p r o c e s s i n g t r y i n g t o c h a s e d o w n r e f e r r a l s t o o t h e r a g e n c i e s a n d t h i s p r o c e s s a l s o i n c r e a s e s t h e t i m e i t t a k e s t o p r o c e s s a r e q u e s t . T h i s m a k e s o u r a g e n c y l o o k b a d , e v e n i f w e h a v e n o c o n t r o l o v e r t h e t i m e l i n e , a n d a l s o p r e v e n t s u s f r o m c h a r g i n g f e e s w h e n w e e x c e e d r e s p o n s e d e a d l i n e s .
2 ) P r o c e s s i n g d e a d l i n e s w h e n n o t i c e u n d e r E O 1 2 , 6 0 0 i s r e q u i r e d E O 1 2 , 6 0 0 r e q u i r e s a g e n c i e s t o p r o v i d e t h i r d p a r t i e s w i t h r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e a n d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o m m e n t w h e n t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e q u e s t e d . P r o v i d i n g t h e s e p a r t i e s w i t h t w o w e e k s t o c o m m e n t , a n d t h e n f i v e b u s i n e s s d a y s n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o r e l e a s e s h o u l d t h e a g e n c y d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e i r c o m m e n t s t a k e s u p f i f t e e n o f t h e t w e n t y b u s i n e s s d a y s a l l o t t e d t o a g e n c i e s w h e n r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e F O I A . I t i s u n r e a s o n a b l e t o a s k a g e n c i e s t o c o m p l e t e a l l s e a r c h , i n t e r n a l r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d s , a n d i n t e r n a l r e v i e w o f t h e c o m m e n t s i n f i v e b u s i n e s s d a y s . W h i l e s o m e a g e n c i e s h a v e b e e n i n c l u d i n g t h i s p r o c e s s a s g r o u n d s f o r " u n u s u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , " a s i t r e q u i r e s a f o r m o f c o n s u l t a t i o n , i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t E O 1 2 , 6 0 0 n o t i c e i s i n c l u d e d . i Collaboration between different MAJCOMs seems to be lacking. We had a case were several bases were asked to provide information, but every base answered it differently. There should be a way that would assist FOIA managers to collaborate with each other while processing similar cases for the same requestor to ensure that the requestor gets a unified answer. Exemptions.Y e s , m a n p o w e r . A s t h e n u m b e r o f F O I A r e q u e s t i n c r e a s e ( t o i n c l u d e h u g e r e q u e s t s a n d r e q u e s t s f o r c l a s s i f i e d r e c o r d s ) , t h e m a n p o w e r h a s n o t i n c r e a s e d a t a l l . I n t h e n e w s I h e a r t h a t D O D h a s o n e o f t h e h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e t i m e s , a n d t h e r e p o r t e r s a r e s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y d o n t k n o w w h y i t i s t a k i n g s o l o n g f o r t h e i r r e q u e s t s t o b e p r o c e s s e d . W e l l , I c a n s a y t h a t F O I A o f f i c e r s a r e p r o c e s s i n g a s q u i c k l y a s p o s s i b l e w i t h t h e m a n p o w e r a n d t h e m i s s i o n w e h a v e . How to prevent the FOIA from being used as an end run around discovery, or as a defense strategy to undermine an agency's ability to prosecute a case currently in litigation. I would like to know how many liaisons receive the exact same repeated requests from the same person through different offices within the agency and if so, at what point do you not have to respond to the individual again.t The use of multitrack processing, referrals and consultation should alter the statutory deadline for a FOIA request.5 impossibility of posting foia responses when the records are not available in a format that is convertable to a 508 compliant version--like old paper files for FDA-regulated products going back to the 1970s for products still on the market. We only have paper copies in the document control room, that's it. Could someone develop or purchase an electronic AF template for any type of response letter that required a short amount of time to complete. The fact that FOIAXpress doesn't work. The program has never fully worked for me. I have worked with my wing CSTs, the AFRC FOIA Manager, and the SAF-CIO program manager and tech support. Also, because I do have a FOIAXpress account (which doesn't work), I get requests for other organizations and I have to process and work for member's not even belonging to my unit. I believe unit's that get requests, should have their own account and process their own requests, The need to contact a requester months later if they haven't paid the fees associated with there request. Most requesters only need one reminder and pay promptly after that. Not at this time. News media representatives status. It's hard to argue with them sometime especially you're new. They should provide us a proof or certificate of employment or something. And then prove it to us that the news is related to current events.+ Those people that dominate the FOIA system.* Bring back (b)(2) for internal issues only End of year report, DD2564 is 12 pages and a week of misery. Everything required should be available in EFOIA. Generating the end of year report should not take longer than an hour. Lack of adequate staff2 FOIAXpress (online): Is the system user friendly? 20 day time limit. Most requesters think this is a must, but we have flexibility. Time limits should be extended to help OPRs and legal offices to have additional time to review/process. We can keep things moving, but most of the time 20 days is too short. FOIA reporting - Why an Annual Report and Annual Chief FOIA Officer's report plus the quarterly reports? Why is the format that you require? For a small agency the reporting is cumbersome and a waste of time and resources. In fact, it takes longer for us to process your reports than it does to process the few FOIA queries we receive each year. It's hard to take your reporting requirements serious when the process is such a joke and time consuming. Legal review...when required. Can't think of any at this time. Separation of classified and unclassified requests, and combining classified FOIA requests with MDR requests into a single organization/office.) For now...just "Fees" as discussed above. Clearly releasable records. Are there any requests that a FOIA processor should not ask t< he requester if they will accept clearly releasable records, e.g., CDI requests, IG reports, contracts, etc. ?s change the number of days for the request from 20 to 30 days...perhaps this will minimize "potential" law suits.... We have several requesters that know how to push the envelope to the limit without having to pay but I guess there is no way to slow them down. classified documents. Believe the best process to handle requests for classified documents is to first go through the MDR process. That will eliminate the issue of classification & the only issue will then be other exemptions. Currently we receive requests/referrals for classified documents which are derivatively classified and we don't have the original documents. Additionally this is an area of expertise that should be handled under the currently existing process for declassification, the MDR process. Most FOIA professionals at the base level don't get enough requests to become proficient and these requests end up being backlogged for extended periods. First do MDR, then work the request as a simple FOIA for whatever is no longer classified. I'd like to see a increased use of technology for processing FOIAs and storing FOIA related documents, including responsive documents. Ideally, we should be able to do everything online, from receiving the request to handling the life cycle of all FOIA related documents. The only issue may be the secure housing of un-redacted documents, but this might be handled by compartmentalized storage of public and private documents. Unknown at this time.5 The tediousness of FMS! There must be an easier way.X The issues surrounding the time spent to perfect FOIA requests as it pertains to scope. v More FOIA express training, more in depth training by agency that would vary based on the exemptions most often used. There is currently no training for those who complete data entry in the FMS-2 System. The last training was in the early 2000's. Efficient and accurate entry will decline without proper training.= more training for anyone dealing w/FOIA requests on any level Limiting the number of FOIA requests a requester can make per year, especially if we are not allowed to charge fees.
A system that will allow for DOJ to have all statistical numbers at their fingertips without our having to submit annual and quarterly reports. Perhaps something could be developed to attach to our current systems, still allowing agencies to have their own specialized tracking features.a Please address those who maintain documents should process them. If documents are maintained by (for example) NCIS, then NCIS should process all the documents they have in response to a FOIA. It makes no sense to break up a file and send small sections of it to different agencies or FOIA offices for processing because the documents originated there. I'm not sure if a survey would help, but it would be good to have a venue to discuss ways to ensure more equal pay and treatment for the FOIA folks. There are Divisions in my Dept. that do less than what we do in my Division, but have higher grades. When a requester requests the same documents he or she requested in previous requests, over and over again. There should be limitations as to how many times agencies satisfy requests by the same requester requesting the same information in previous requests.# Make FMS system more user friendly. YEEESS!! The 20-days for routine and 30-days for complex is not enough time to processing multiple requests. it gives the requester the upper hand to complain, threaten or sue agencies as most are working with limited staff. Surrounding fee issues, or beyond? Beyond, yes. FMS2 - WE NEED TRAINING, PLEASE. NO ONE ELSE in the office using it - so there became no reason for me to use it. The system can be GREAT, but it is a all or nothing for it too be a WONDERFUL tool. We have been battling this issue for years. Each Division need a primary and secondary contact for FOIAs. Get them trained and as the FOIAs come to them they assign and train that person....... The furthest our office has gone electronically is to scan and route the incoming to the appropriate Division or employee if know. That is it. From there it is processed and the draft/final draft is forwarded to me for completion, concur, signed... The relation of FOIA request type to the FOIA 20 working day turnaround time. FOIA requester any and all FOIA request can and should be responded to in 20 working days. 4 FOIA Liaisons should be independent within agencies.# what is releasable and what is not.I Government-wide FOIA requests - how to better coordiante between agenciesS Using FOIAonline to generate statistics and taking the burden off of FOIA officers.X Reasonable response times, usually 20 days is not enough time to respond to requesters. Cross training personnel % Staff resouces, staff work load, etc.| 508 compliance for posting web information- how much of this burden is falling on FOIA offices for conducting transparency?: 1. Staffing
2. Separate mechanism for media requesters4 Return FOIA fees to the program that has to respond.\ Do these surveys positively effect change in the FOIA processes within the Executive branch? -converting records to PDF from Word/Excel, etc.
-how to easily identify and eliminate duplicates of electronic files
-the FOIA in relation to emails and text messages - how respond, what can be considered too broad, etc.X Inaction to FOIA requests for information:
If there are agencies that seem to deliberately or "unintentionally" delay the FOIA process by pleading ignorance, work load issues or "do it for me". How can that agency be held accontable for their inactions? What mechanism is in place that lights the fire under them to respond in a timely manner? Making the FOIA Coordinator job a full time position instead of duties added. Make the GS level commensurate with the work performed.x Requirement to provide other agency documents that are in our agency's possession in response to FOIA requests for them.. Utilization of (b)(2) or replacement exemption Discussion on what constitutes a commercial requester. This most often is an issue when we receive requests from litigation attorneys purportedly on behalf of someone from the news media or education community. u How are agencies handling the news media fee categorization in the current era of blogs and independent journalists? We need a central depository that includes all FOIA pocs for various organizations/agencys. That information should be mandated to be kept current. we need resources, not surveys> limiting number of requests that can be made by an individual. processing time is not realistic, bill of collection is such a tedious processQ For most FOIA issues to be resolved, adequate funding (appropriations) is needed. The current FOIA statute says that cases should be processed within 20 days or the requester can file suit. Twenty days is completely unrealistic for the State Department to process, review and respond to FOIA requests. As a result, we are having huge numbers of FOIA law suits.L Direct commands to give their FOIA Coordinators the series for this program.N Legislation that would eliminate the FOIA as a discovery tool in litigation. Video monitoring.~ If agencies have to continue to collect fees, the fees should go directly back to the agency who processed the request/appeal. The deadline for responses from agencies that is in the current law (20 working days) is totally unrealistic - at least for the Department of State. Requests sometimes involve thousands of documents that require weeks to search for and assemble and then additional weeks (sometimes months) to review. The law should be changed to make the 20 days the deadline for acknowledging receipt of the request and providing a status report to the requester, not for completion of the case. $ If this is the only forum we have...X 20 day response time limit should be changed to reflect the reality of case processing The records management standards with the government. We are going electroni< c more and more each day and we still have paper records. Come on already. Establish the standard format and get on with it already. Talk about reducing search times.: Track placements and interim releases related to backlog. There is so much variation in how FOIAs are processed and fees charged within Departments let alone throughout the Federal Government. It would be great if there was a standardized process.I This topic is one I have had several issues with just this past 30 days. Make fees a priority. FOIA is a business. So few processors and offices charge fees it's laughable. The lack of importance of fees has made FOIA free of charge, it was never inteded to be that way, for commercial requestors anyway. need for reviewers to help ensure requests are clear and legitimate before they are accepted by the agency -- MUCH time & money is wasted on requests that should never have been accepted on their face. How to we catch up the backlog, with less persons to do the work.
FOIA Visability, some agencies do not respect the FOIA Process, I would like for DOD to help agency heads understand the importance of FOIA. M Updating/amending the nine exemptions to reflect 21st century technology.
Templates for all regions. Redactions. Fee categoriesB The cost associated with pulling records back from iron mountain. h Reduce FOIA backlogs on complex requests:
1. contract type FOIA requests -- required the submitter to provide FOIA release determination prior contract is awarded
2. classified request for records with multiple agencies equities -- push to Mandatory Declassification Review or asking more time to process requests
3. Manning/Staffing -- ask for more manning^ Oooo, I wish I could think of something. I'll send you guys a note if I do. Thanks for asking! Non perfected request9 Congress and the Administration providing more resources. Not sure what could be done but I think there are a lot of us "all in one" FOIA Officers that have multiple duties besides handling FOIA requests. O 20 working day suspense - this is next to impossible for contracting issues. EO 12600 and 32 CFR, Part 518.16(l) states submitters shall be afforded reasonable time (14 calendar days) to present objections; however, the FACTS database does not factor contract FOIA requests when tolling, only the option to select reasons why the request is 'late'. Additionally, FOIA requests continue to increase each year, cutbacks dont allow for rehiring yet alone, additional employees being hired, yet the governmnet is held to reduce the backlog by 10% each year. This does not add up. I guarantee companies and individual requesters would not request as many documents and requests as they do if they were charged accordingly. The spirit of FOIA is not what was initially intended.- FOIA regulations should be standard across the board for Federal agencies.
DOJ/OIP training/guidance should be uniform and consistent. Given a specific set of facts, DOJ should be able to give straightforward guidance (not wishy-washy). This job is hard! We can get wishy-washy all by ourselves. Scope of requests. R FOIA categories are often ill-defined and confusing for both agency and requester.i Frankly, 20 working days to provide a response is unreasonable. There is just no way that with many of these requests for contract documents (and often involving literally thousands of pages) that gathering the documents, doing a submitter notice, reviewing the objections, and doing a page-by-page review for releasability that this is even remotely feasible.< Best practices for handling unreasonably described requests." Fees related to prisoners' request Expanding the due dates of FOIA request would be great. Twenty working days is not enough when having to collaborate with multiple agencies or interanl components. Many of our request are voluminous and achived records that take a long time to pull. I am brand new to the FOIA Program (a few months). I am a regional representative in the NPS. With that said, discussing ANY and ALL FOIA topics would be good to me! I don't feel I'm experienced enough yet to accurately provide a valid response to most of these questions. Staffing needs. How agencies manage and search their e-mails and how they extract those e-mails for processing as e-mail is having a tremendous impact on our workload.0 Discuss ways to best simply and standardize fees Salary increase I do not have any suggestions. Appeals; Requests for information just to complete college papers. j Processing times given agencies' ever increasing FOIA case loads and scarce resources to handle all of it. Appeals
Frequent requesters
Ways to streamline receiving clarification and amendments for requests (Fee issues is one way; thanks for this survey.) open more records faster % Address expanding the processing time The rule of first in/first out:
I believe this rule should apply to the type of requests an agency receives versus all request. Possibly limiting the amount of documents a requester can ask for. Some requests are just not possible to be handled within the 20 day time limit provided by the FOIA. Surveys of agency FOIA professionals is a good idea. Topics should include A to Z. If Congress is serious about FOIA reform they should listen to those who confront the good, the bad, and the ugly on a daily basis. How to categorize bloggers.] More coordination between agencies should occur when it comes release of documents. The public believes that if the document is in your office you are permitted to give it to them. They are not aware that those agencies need to coordinate with the other agencies to ask for review/release. More public awareness/understanding on the FOIA process. Fee Categories9 The collection of interest fees for delinquent requesterse I sometimes fear we are expending a great deal of taxpayer resources to satisfy the FOIA requests of a few. Our recordholders are workers with "day jobs," but they are asked to set everything aside because someone is asking for records to support future litigation. I wonder if you should ask how the agency's core mission is affected by these requests. I know there is more I'd like to have the committee look at, but right now I'm too angry over this survey to list out what else I'd like to see reviewed.@ Overly broad requests submitted by media/educational institutes.- classification of requesters for fee purposes Silly requests from foreigners searching for UFOs and other supposed USG conspiracies. Nonsense requests like these take their toll on many of our commands and impact our ability to process requests that are legitimate. ` We haven't made much progress with the pledge of transparency and the pressumption of sharing. D Why do fees currently cover such a small percentage of FOIA costs? g How often SME's disregard a FOIA officers need for an Equity Review of responsive documents. I have problems over and over, I would like FOIA officers to be able to "task" this duty so that our FOIA's can be completed in a timely manner (within 20 days). Our facility hasn't been able to collect any fees in 2015 due to nonresponses from outside facilities.| Those agencies collecting fees should be able to retain or be refunded at least a percentage of fees it collects annually. J Changing the amount of days for processing a request to more than 20 days. Difficult requesters, scoping negotiation with requesters, explaining the breath and depth of what OGIS can do for agencies and requesters. I've had great working relationships with OGIS. I just want to ensure that all agencies know exactly what OGIS can do for them and visa versa. FOIA staff throughout the government needs to be increased in order to actually comply with the statutes regarding response times. Possible limits on number of request one individual can submit in a specific timeframe. My office received 40 requests from one news media requesters in one month and over 200 from the same requester in 5 months. The majority of the requests were complex and very broad.y Charge requesters for ALL ti< me spent processing a request by expanding the definition of search, review, and duplication. In the National Guard, we have 54 States and Territories were bosses might not "fit" into the Federal chain. In NY we have to include these bosses, which includes the Adjutant General.H I am not previledged to know the answers to some of the above questions.F Expanding the definition of "duplicate" request to encompass "substantively similar" requests. So if a request is not precisely identical but its substance is about the same set of facts and is being filed just to harass an agency, the expanded definition of "duplicate" request can be invoked to put an end to the harassment. How agencies handle due date extensions when it's not for unusual or exceptions circumstances; its likely just that the staff are sitting on the request.2 Most USG employees do not understand FOIA and their responsibilities. Encourage more education. Further, general public and in particular media representatives also do not understand FOIA. General education is needed. New technology for search and making public the records are needed. For example, I can see that in the future someone will type in a request at an agency website and within minutes, hours or in more rare cases, days, records are made available through automated searches and mostly automated review. We should be moving in that direction.4 Make the FOIA applicable to the records of Congress.G Please address the statutory 20 day response time. It is unreasonable.I How about giving us more personnel to handle such a tremendous workload. Training and Management support+ requesters asking for any and all documents Establish a complaint process for FOIA Officers in the field who believe senior management in their agency is interfering with the FOIA process, (b)(3) Exemption to replace the High (b)(2).8 How are DOJ and OGIS helpful to government FOIA staff. - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees Survey
3 5 ; > q>
@ F
C AE G I m L j hR i t
| . b p m _ 8
J # A _ t { 8 & 8 6 H R ] ( d @ n 5 w } k l b i V B k $ T 1 Z ; b Q | B" ' - 3 ' ;C d
G N U / y[ ~ a h
q w h M 3 Q n P g
d I d = " s
A $ u y L % & ) , % n1 : ) > C H O W e n t z q 0 ' } % P A q 6 w R c c B
T8
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " B ? ?y & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J "
J
J
J
G
G
G
G
K
K
>
>
H
H ? jt?~
@ A@
H
H ? /$?~
@ K@
H
H ? 0@@ P@
H
H ? ʡE?~
@ @o@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ? 8 8 8 < < 2 < 2 (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A ` 3 O a 5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
3 O
? % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < n?'˗~{??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D a `_BWU?C i?Duk ?b1Ѱ? % 333 U B ? ? 3 O l P & Q
` .H o w l o n g h a v e y o u w o r k e d i n y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ? ' R R < m Gl??
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S
> @ " d d J 7 g g D
T8 h ` j
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
h @ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G
G
G
G
K
K
>
>
H
H ? On?~
@ @^@
H
H
? S㥛?~
@ c@
H
H ? Dl?~
@ l@
H
H ? Zd;O?~
@ @W@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ?
C
C
C
C ~
D ? E ` @
~
D @ E l؛@
~
D @
E lÛ@
~
D @ E 8㴛@
~
D @ E @
~
D @ E ?>@
~
D @ E a `@
~
D @ E -@
~
D "@ E 8@
~
D $@ E q ؚ@
~
D &@ E -Қ@
~
D (@ E -њ@
~
D *@ E Iɚ@
~
D ,@ E PO|@
~
D .@ E ll{@
! ~
D 0@ E OW@
" ~
D 1@ E [[T@
# ~
D 2@ E -N@
$ ~
D 3@ E ` /@
% ~
D 4@ E JI @
& ~
D 5@ E @
' B f X8 8 8 < < < < 2 2 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D 6@ E JI@
% ~
! D 7@ ! E 3333@
! ( ~
" D 8@ " E @
" ) ~
# D 9@ # E (}'@
# * ~
$ D :@ $ E 8@
$ + ~
% D ;@ % E >@
% * ~
& D <@ & E >@
& , ~
' D =@ ' E [@
' - ~
( D >@ ( E q @
( . ~
) D ?@ ) E """"]@
) / ~
* D @@ * E q 3@
* 0 ~
+ D @@ + E -@
+ 1 ~
, D A@ , E @
, 2 ~
- D A@ - E JI@
- 3 ~
. D B@ . E @
. 4 ~
/ D B@ / E wwww@
/ 5 ~
0 D C@ 0 E }'}@
0 6 ~
1 D C@ 1 E wwww@
1 7 ~
2 D D@ 2 E q Ǐ@
2 % ~
3 D D@ 3 E 8@
3 8 ~
4 D E@ 4 E r q@
4 9 ~
5 D E@ 5 E }'}{@
5 : ~
6 D F@ 6 E l{@
6 * ~
7 D F@ 7 E y@
7 ; ~
8 D G@ 8 E Iy@
8 < ~
9 D G@ 9 E }'}y@
9 = ~
: D H@ : E ` y@
: > ~
; D H@ ; E JIw@
; % ~
< D I@ < E .-v@
< 7 ~
= D I@ = E u@
= ? ~
> D J@ > E UUUUu@
> ; ~
? D J@ ? E ?>u@
? * D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D K@ @ E llq@
@ % ~
A D K@ A E ]@
A @ ~
B D L@ B E l]@
B A ~
C D L@ C E \@
C % ~
D D M@ D E '}[@
D B ~
E D M@ E E >[@
E % ~
F D N@ F E IZ@
F C ~
G D N@ G E 8Y@
G % ~
H D O@ H E (}'Y@
H D ~
I D O@ I E [X@
I % ~
J D P@ J E q W@
J E ~
K D @P@ K E OV@
K F ~
L D P@ L E IV@
L G ~
M D P@ M E ?>V@
M ~
N D Q@ N E T@
N H ~
O D @Q@ O E JIT@
O I ~
P D Q@ P E lS@
P J ~
Q D Q@ Q E ` P@
Q K ~
R D R@ R E JIP@
R L ~
S D @R@ S E ` P@
S M ~
T D R@ T E O@
T N ~
U D R@ U E DDDD?@
U O ~
V D S@ V E O=@
V P ~
W D @S@ W E ` <@
W Q X D S@E <@
X R ~
Y D S@ Y E """";@
Y S ~
Z D T@ Z E q ;@
Z % ~
[ D @T@ [ E ffff:@
[ T ~
\ D T@ \ E [[:@
\ U ~
] D T@ ] E >9@
] V ~
^ D U@ ^ E -9@
^ W ~
_ D @U@ _ E 9@
_ X D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . ` a b c d e f g ~
` D U@ ` E PO9@
` Y ~
a D U@ a E ?>9@
a Z ~
b D V@ b E l9@
b [ ~
c D @V@ c E 9@
c \ ~
d D V@ d E 9@
d ] ~
e D V@ e E I8@
e ^ ~
f D W@ f E 8@
f _ ~
g D @W@ g E wwww8@
g C . . . . . . . 0 (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1
% ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H 0 (
@3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A
3 O G $
3 b R R
R R R R V V d 333 ? &
! 333 ?
. S S 4 3 * 333 ? &
! 333 ? ! 333 ? 4 5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
4 S S 4 D G $
r ?и[?JĢ?8 8? % 333 M 5 ? ? 3 O B & Q
AW h a t i s y o u r r o l e w i t h i n t h e F O I A p r o c e s s ? ( C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y ) ' R R < C ޝ ǽ?nʄm?
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S n?
> @ t r d d J 7 g g D
T8
!
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G `
G `
G `
G `
K
K
>
>
H a
H a ? 0@@ P@
H b
H b ? /$?~
@ A@
H c
H c ? M?~
@ M@
H d
H d ? K7?~
@ T@
H e
H e ? "~j?~
@ F@
H f
H f ? Mb?~
@ C@
H g
H g ? ~jt?~
@ C@
H h
H h
? "~j?~
@ F@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ? 8 8 8 2 < < < < < < < 2 P (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H 0 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ;
Q ;
Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
f f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A + ` 3 O * a 5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
3 O
D ~ % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < T d;?i!ߔ??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D *a /?C i?Duk ?b1Ѱ? % 333 a U b ? ? 3 O B & Q
t 8H o w m a n y r e q u e s t s d o e s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n r e c e i v e a y e a r ? ' R R < C \D8??
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S _
> @ " d d j
7 g g D
T8 1 r4
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G i
G i
G i
G i
K
K
>
>
H j
H j ? Zd;O?~
@ @g@
H k
H k ? rh?~
@ a@
H l
H l ? +@@ K@
H m
H m ? Dl?~
@ <@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ? 8 8 8 < < 2 < 2 p (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H @ 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A 9 = g A 3 O 8 = f A 5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
3 O c ? % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < 4;8?X{10??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D 8=fA Et ?-?xQ< ?4.tr? % 333 U ~ ? ? 3 O 1 J & Q
O n a v e r a g e , h o w m u c h t i m e d o y o u s p e n d e a c h w e e k r e v i e w i n g f e e r e l a t e d i s s u e s ( e . g . p l a c e m e n t i n r e q u e s t e r f e e c a t e g o r y , p r o v i d i n g f e e e s t i m a t e s , c o l l e c t i n g f e e s , a d j u d i c a t i n g f e e w a i v e r s , e t c . ) ? ' R R < 0 Gl??
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S e
> @ a b d d J 7 g g D
T8 XD H
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G n
G n
G n
G n
K
K
>
>
H o
H o ? Zd;?~
@ @i@
H p
H p ? ~jt?~
@ S@
H q
H q ? ~jt?~
@ C@
H r
H r ? Mb?~
@ 3@
H s
H s ? i|?5?~
@ 8@
H t
H t ? S㥛?~
@ &@
H u
H u ? I +?~
@ "@
H v
H v
? rh?~
@ @
H w
H w ? /$?~
@ 1@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ? @ 8 8 8 < < < < < < < < < 2 (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H P 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
f f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
f M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A :
3 O ;
5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
3 O
1 % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < H+? [~43??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D ;
@ t r d d r
7 g g D
T8 < R .Z b Jk s Z| j z l
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
R @ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G x
G x
G x
G x
K
K
>
>
H y
H y ? K7?~
@ p@
H z
H z ? rh?~
@ a@
H {
H { M t@F t@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ?
C
C
C {
C ~
D ?
E PO@
| ~
D @ E ` @
} ~
D @ E ` @
~ ~
D @
E l؛@
~
D @ E .-՛@
~
D @ E lÛ@
~
D @ E @
~
D @ E -@
~
D "@ E UUUU@
~
D $@ E @
~
D &@ E 8㴛@
~
D (@ E ` @
~
D *@ E UUUU^@
~
D ,@ E .-O@
~
D .@ E UUUU<@
~
D 0@ E l:@
~
D 1@ E l9@
~
D 2@ E a `5@
~
D 3@ E [0@
~
D 4@ E DDDD @
~
D 5@ E 8@
~
D 6@ E @
B N X8 8 8 < < 2 2 2 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D 7@ E ?>@
~
! D 8@ ! E >@
! ~
" D 9@ " E -@
" ~
# D :@ # E }'}@
# ~
$ D ;@ $ E @
$ ~
% D <@ % E 8@
% ~
& D =@ & E a `@
& ~
' D >@ ' E O@
' ~
( D ?@ ( E l@
( ~
) D @@ ) E """"@
) ~
* D @@ * E [@
* ~
+ D A@ + E ` @
+ ~
, D A@ , E DDDD@
, ~
- D B@ - E l@
- ~
. D B@ . E @
. ~
/ D C@ / E Iܚ@
/ ~
0 D C@ 0 E q ؚ@
0 ~
1 D D@ 1 E ?>ך@
1 ~
2 D D@ 2 E .-֚@
2 ~
3 D E@ 3 E ?>՚@
3 ~
4 D E@ 4 E r qԚ@
4 ~
5 D F@ 5 E ` Ԛ@
5 ~
6 D F@ 6 E '}Ӛ@
6 ~
7 D G@ 7 E OҚ@
7 ~
8 D G@ 8 E IҚ@
8 ~
9 D H@ 9 E 8Қ@
9 ~
: D H@ : E -Қ@
: ~
; D I@ ; E a `Қ@
; ~
< D I@ < E (}'Қ@
< ~
= D J@ = E -њ@
= ~
> D J@ > E -њ@
> ~
? D K@ ? E '}њ@
? D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D K@ @ E Iњ@
@ ~
A D L@ A E .-њ@
A ~
B D L@ B E POК@
B ~
C D M@ C E wwwwΚ@
C ~
D D M@ D E wwww͚@
D ~
E D N@ E E Iɚ@
E ~
F D N@ F E PO|@
F ~
G D O@ G E ll{@
G ~
H D O@ H E 3333u@
H ~
I D P@ I E ]@
I ~
J D @P@ J E .-]@
J ~
K D P@ K E 3333Z@
K ~
L D P@ L E DDDDX@
L ~
M D Q@ M E OW@
M ~
N D @Q@ N E [[T@
N ~
O D Q@ O E ` S@
O ~
P D Q@ P E OR@
P ~
Q D R@ Q E -N@
Q ~
R D @R@ R E ffff;@
R ~
S D R@ S E O:@
S ~
T D R@ T E >7@
T ~
U D S@ U E ll6@
U ~
V D @S@ V E ` 5@
V ~
W D S@ W E I2@
W ~
X D S@ X E 1@
X ~
Y D T@ Y E l1@
Y ~
Z D @T@ Z E ` /@
Z ~
[ D T@ [ E JI @
[ ~
\ D T@ \ E 3333 @
\ ~
] D U@ ] E @
] ~
^ D @U@ ^ E DDDD@
^ ~
_ D U@ _ E @
_ D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D U@ ` E [[@
` ~
a D V@ a E 98@
a ~
b D @V@ b E l@
b ~
c D V@ c E ` @
c ~
d D V@ d E @
d ~
e D W@ e E O@
e ~
f D @W@ f E @
f ~
g D W@ g E -@
g ~
h D W@ h E wwww@
h ~
i D X@ i E 3333@
i ~
j D @X@ j E ` @
j ~
k D X@ k E JI@
k ~
l D X@ l E """"@
l ~
m D Y@ m E @
m ~
n D @Y@ n E PO@
n ~
o D Y@ o E JI@
o ~
p D Y@ p E (}'@
p ~
q D Z@ q E 8@
q ~
r D @Z@ r E >@
r ~
s D Z@ s E >@
s ~
t D Z@ t E q @
t ~
u D [@ u E [@
u ~
v D @[@ v E q @
v ~
w D [@ w E r q@
w ~
x D [@ x E ll@
x ~
y D \@ y E @
y ~
z D @\@ z E @
z ~
{ D \@ { E @
{ ~
| D \@ | E (}'@
| ~
} D ]@ } E ?>@
} ~
~ D @]@ ~ E I@
~ ~
D ]@ E r q@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D ]@ E @
~
D ^@ E q @
~
D @^@ E """"v@
~
D ^@ E Ip@
~
D ^@ E """"]@
~
D _@ E 88@
~
D @_@ E 6@
~
D _@ E -5@
~
D _@ E q 3@
~
D `@ E 3@
~
D `@ E [@
~
D @`@ E -@
~
D ``@ E -@
~
D `@ E @
~
D `@ E I@
~
D `@ E JI@
~
D `@ E JI@
~
D a@ E @
~
D a@ E -@
~
D @a@ E @
~
D `a@ E """"@
~
D a@ E .-@
~
D a@ E (}'@
~
D a@ E wwww@
~
D a@ E @
~
D b@ E ` @
~
D b@ E ffff@
~
D @b@ E l@
~
D `b@ E }'}@
~
D b@ E wwww@
~
D b@ E I@
~
D b@ E """"@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D b@ E ̏@
~
D c@ E ̏@
~
D c@ E q Ǐ@
~
D @c@ E r q@
~
D `c@ E }'}{@
~
D c@ E l{@
~
D c@ E wwwwz@
~
D c@ E y@
~
D c@ E Iy@
~
D d@ E }'}y@
~
D d@ E ` y@
~
D @d@ E x@
~
D `d@ E 8x@
~
D d@ E q w@
~
D d@ E llw@
~
D d@ E JIw@
! ~
D d@ E ` w@
" ~
D e@ E w@
# ~
D e@ E 8v@
$ ~
D @e@ E -v@
% ~
D `e@ E [v@
& ~
D e@ E -v@
' ~
D e@ E wwwwv@
( ~
D e@ E .-v@
) ~
D e@ E q v@
* ~
D f@ E lv@
+ ~
D f@ E u@
, ~
D @f@ E 8u@
- ~
D `f@ E [u@
. ~
D f@ E UUUUu@
/ ~
D f@ E ?>u@
0 ~
D f@ E DDDDt@
1 D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D f@ E Is@
2 ~
D g@ E s@
3 ~
D g@ E r@
4 ~
D @g@ E llq@
5 ~
D `g@ E p@
6 ~
D g@ E r qp@
7 ~
D g@ E ` p@
8 ~
D g@ E o@
9 ~
D g@ E 3333o@
: ~
D h@ E r qn@
; ~
D h@ E ffff`@
< ~
D @h@ E I^@
= ~
D `h@ E ]@
> ~
D h@ E l]@
? ~
D h@ E \@
@ ~
D h@ E I\@
A ~
D h@ E ` \@
B ~
D i@ E '}[@
C ~
D i@ E >[@
D ~
D @i@ E IZ@
E ~
D `i@ E 8Y@
F ~
D i@ E }'}Y@
G ~
D i@ E llY@
H ~
D i@ E (}'Y@
I ~
D i@ E ` Y@
J ~
D j@ E X@
K ~
D j@ E llX@
L ~
D @j@ E [X@
M ~
D `j@ E -W@
N ~
D j@ E OV@
O ~
D j@ E IV@
P ~
D j@ E 8V@
Q D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D j@ E r qV@
R ~
D k@ E ?>V@
S ~
D k@ E lV@
T ~
D @k@ E 8U@
U ~
D `k@ E [[U@
V ~
D k@ E POU@
W ~
D k@ E q U@
X ~
D k@ E ` U@
Y ~
D k@ E T@
Z ~
D l@ E T@
[ ~
D l@ E OT@
\ ~
D @l@ E IT@
] ~
D `l@ E r qT@
^ ~
D l@ E POT@
_ ~
D l@ E JIT@
` ~
D l@ E """"T@
a ~
D l@ E q S@
b ~
D m@ E lS@
c ~
D m@ E S@
d ~
D @m@ E -S@
e ~
D `m@ E """"S@
f ~
D m@ E wwwwR@
g ~
D m@ E DDDDR@
h ~
D m@ E 8Q@
i ~
D m@ E 8Q@
j ~
D n@ E wwwwQ@
k ~
D n@ E llQ@
l ~
D @n@ E ffffQ@
m ~
D `n@ E POQ@
n ~
D n@ E DDDDQ@
o ~
D n@ E 3333Q@
p ~
D n@ E ` Q@
q D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
D n@ E ` P@
r ~
D o@ E IP@
s ~
D o@ E 8P@
t ~
D @o@ E llP@
u ~
D `o@ E UUUUP@
v ~
D o@ E JIP@
w ~
D o@ E P@
x ~
D o@ E ` P@
y ~
D o@ E [O@
z ~
D p@ E O@
{ ~
D p@
E UUUUO@
| ~
D p@ E 98O@
} ~
D 0p@ E [N@
~ ~
D @p@
E -N@
~
D Pp@ E ?>N@
~
D `p@ E .-N@
~
D pp@ E DDDD?@
~
D p@ E O=@
~
D p@ E r q=@
~
D p@ E [[=@
~
D p@ E ><@
~
D p@ E ` <@
~
D p@ E .-<@
~
D p@ E <@
D p@E <@
~
D q@ E O;@
~
D q@ E O;@
~
D q@ E ;@
~
D 0q@ E ;@
~
D @q@ E ll;@
~
D Pq@ E ffff;@
~
D `q@ E """";@
D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D pq@ E q ;@
~
! D q@ ! E I:@
! ~
" D q@ " E '}:@
" ~
# D q@ # E :@
# ~
$ D q@ $ E ` :@
$ ~
% D q@ % E :@
% ~
& D q@ & E :@
& ~
' D q@ ' E r q:@
' ~
( D q@ ( E ll:@
( ~
) D r@ ) E [[:@
) ~
* D r@ * E JI:@
* ~
+ D r@ + E DDDD:@
+ ~
, D 0r@ , E ?>:@
, ~
- D @r@ - E 98:@
- ~
. D Pr@ . E .-:@
. ~
/ D `r@ / E .-:@
/ ~
0 D pr@ 0 E (}':@
0 ~
1 D r@ 1 E """":@
1 ~
2 D r@ 2 E :@
2 ~
3 D r@ 3 E :@
3 ~
4 D r@ 4 E ` :@
4 ~
5 D r@ 5 E I9@
5 ~
6 D r@ 6 E 9@
6 ~
7 D r@ 7 E >9@
7 ~
8 D r@ 8 E 9@
8 ~
9 D s@ 9 E 9@
9 ~
: D s@ : E 89@
: ~
; D s@ ; E r q9@
; ~
< D 0s@ < E [[9@
< ~
= D @s@ = E PO9@
= ~
> D Ps@ > E ?>9@
> ~
? D `s@ ? E (}'9@
? D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q ~
@ D ps@ @ E (}'9@
@ ~
A D s@ A E l9@
A ~
B D s@ B E 9@
B ~
C D s@ C E 9@
C ~
D D s@ D E 9@
D ~
E D s@ E E 88@
E ~
F D s@ F E -8@
F ~
G D s@ G E '}8@
G ~
H D s@ H E I8@
H ~
I D t@ I E I8@
I ~
J D t@ J E 8@
J ~
K D t@ K E 8@
K ~
L D 0t@ L E }'}8@
L ~
M D @t@ M E wwww8@
M ~
N D Pt@ N E ll8@
N ~
O D `t@ O E ffff8@
O ~
P D pt@ P E a `8@
P ~
Q D t@ Q E PO8@
Q ( T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 P P x ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H ` 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A
3 O
5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
M 6 3 O M ! % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < _ d3t ?2 *??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D
Y ?H?/?&=? % 333 P g ? ? 3 O ( & Q
HD o y o u s e e a n y a d v a n t a g e s a n d / o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s t o e l i m i n a t i n g F O I A f e e s ? ' R R < ?55?
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S
> @ y z d d B 7 g g D
T8 4 d r x
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G
G
G
G
K
K
>
>
H y
H y ? /$?~
@ l@
H z
H z ? ʡE?~
@ f@
H {
H { M o@F o@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ?
C
C
C {
C ~
D ?
E ` @
~
D @ E ` @
~
D @ E l؛@
~
D @
E .-՛@
~
D @ E lÛ@
~
D @ E @
~
D @ E -@
~
D @ E @
~
D "@ E 8㴛@
~
D $@ E UUUU^@
~
D &@ E .-O@
~
D (@ E UUUU<@
~
D *@ E l9@
~
D ,@ E DDDD @
~
D .@ E 8@
~
D 0@ E @
~
D 1@ E ?>@
~
D 2@ E >@
~
D 3@ E }'}@
~
D 4@ E @
~
D 5@ E 8@
~
D 6@ E a `@
B N X8 8 8 < < 2 2 2 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D 7@ E O@
~
! D 8@ ! E l@
! ~
" D 9@ " E """"@
" ~
# D :@ # E [@
# ~
$ D ;@ $ E ` @
$ ~
% D <@ % E PO@
% ~
& D =@ & E l@
& ~
' D >@ ' E @
' ~
( D ?@ ( E @
( ~
) D @@ ) E Iܚ@
) ~
* D @@ * E q ؚ@
* ~
+ D A@ + E ?>ך@
+ ~
, D A@ , E ?>՚@
, ~
- D B@ - E ` Ԛ@
- ~
. D B@ . E '}Ӛ@
. ~
/ D C@ / E OҚ@
/ ~
0 D C@ 0 E IҚ@
0 ~
1 D D@ 1 E -Қ@
1 ~
2 D D@ 2 E a `Қ@
2 ~
3 D E@ 3 E (}'Қ@
3 ~
4 D E@ 4 E -њ@
4 ~
5 D F@ 5 E -њ@
5 ~
6 D F@ 6 E '}њ@
6 ~
7 D G@ 7 E Iњ@
7 ~
8 D G@ 8 E POњ@
8 ~
9 D H@ 9 E .-њ@
9 ~
: D H@ : E POК@
: ~
; D I@ ; E wwwwΚ@
; ~
< D I@ < E wwww͚@
< ~
= D J@ = E Iɚ@
= ~
> D J@ > E ll{@
> ~
? D K@ ? E ]@
? D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D K@ @ E .-]@
@ ~
A D L@ A E OW@
A ~
B D L@ B E [[T@
B ~
C D M@ C E ` S@
C ~
D D M@ D E OR@
D ~
E D N@ E E ffff;@
E ~
F D N@ F E O:@
F ~
G D O@ G E >7@
G ~
H D O@ H E ll6@
H ~
I D P@ I E ` 5@
I ~
J D @P@ J E I2@
J ~
K D P@ K E 1@
K ~
L D P@ L E 3333 @
L ~
M D Q@ M E DDDD@
M ~
N D @Q@ N E [[@
N ~
O D Q@ O E 98@
O ~
P D Q@ P E l@
P
~
Q D R@ Q E ` @
Q ~
R D @R@ R E @
R ~
S D R@ S E O@
S
~
T D R@ T E @
T ~
U D S@ U E JI@
U ~
V D @S@ V E 3333@
V ~
W D S@ W E ` @
W ~
X D S@ X E JI@
X ~
Y D T@ Y E """"@
Y ~
Z D @T@ Z E @
Z ~
[ D T@ [ E JI@
[ ~
\ D T@ \ E (}'@
\ ~
] D U@ ] E >@
] ~
^ D @U@ ^ E >@
^ ~
_ D U@ _ E q @
_ D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D U@ ` E q @
` ~
a D V@ a E @
a ~
b D @V@ b E @
b ~
c D V@ c E @
c ~
d D V@ d E (}'@
d ~
e D W@ e E ?>@
e ~
f D @W@ f E I@
f ~
g D W@ g E }'}@
g ! ~
h D W@ h E r q@
h " ~
i D X@ i E @
i # ~
j D @X@ j E q @
j $ ~
k D X@ k E """"v@
k % ~
l D X@ l E """"]@
l & ~
m D Y@ m E 6@
m ' ~
n D @Y@ n E -5@
n ( ~
o D Y@ o E q 3@
o ) ~
p D Y@ p E 3@
p * ~
q D Z@ q E }'}2@
q + ~
r D @Z@ r E 80@
r , ~
s D Z@ s E -@
s - ~
t D Z@ t E -@
t . ~
u D [@ u E @
u / ~
v D @[@ v E I@
v 0 ~
w D [@ w E JI@
w 1 ~
x D [@ x E JI@
x 2 ~
y D \@ y E @
y 3 ~
z D @\@ z E .-@
z 4 ~
{ D \@ { E wwww@
{ 5 ~
| D \@ | E @
| 6 ~
} D ]@ } E ffff@
} 7 ~
~ D @]@ ~ E l@
~ 8 ~
D ]@ E }'}@
9 D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D ]@ E wwww@
: ~
D ^@ E """"@
; ~
D @^@ E 8㐘@
< ~
D ^@ E ̏@
= ~
D ^@ E q Ǐ@
> ~
D _@ E {@
? ~
D @_@ E wwwwz@
@ ~
D _@ E y@
A ~
D _@ E Iy@
B ~
D `@ E }'}y@
C ~
D `@ E ` y@
D ~
D @`@ E x@
E ~
D ``@ E 8x@
F ~
D `@ E q w@
G ~
D `@ E llw@
H ~
D `@ E ` w@
I ~
D `@ E w@
J ~
D a@ E 8v@
K ~
D a@ E -v@
L ~
D @a@ E -v@
M ~
D `a@ E wwwwv@
N ~
D a@ E .-v@
O ~
D a@ E lv@
P ~
D a@ E [u@
y ~
D a@ E UUUUu@
Q ~
D b@ E ?>u@
R ~
D b@ E DDDDt@
S D @b@E t@
T ~
D `b@ E Is@
U ~
D b@ E s@
V ~
D b@ E r@
W ~
D b@ E llq@
X D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . ~
D b@ E p@
Y ~
D c@ E r qp@
Z ~
D c@ E ` p@
[ ~
D @c@ E 3333o@
\ ~
D `c@ E r qn@
] ~
D c@ E I^@
^ ~
D c@ E ]@
_ ~
D c@ E l]@
` ~
D c@ E \@
a ~
D d@ E I\@
b ~
D d@ E ` \@
c ~
D @d@ E '}[@
d ~
D `d@ E >[@
e ~
D d@ E }'}Y@
f ~
D d@ E (}'Y@
g ~
D d@ E ` Y@
h ~
D d@ E X@
i ~
D e@ E llX@
j ~
D e@ E [X@
k ~
D @e@ E -W@
l ~
D `e@ E OV@
m ~
D e@ E ?>V@
n ~
D e@ E lV@
o ~
D e@ E 8U@
p ~
D e@ E [[U@
q ~
D f@ E POU@
r ~
D f@ E ` U@
s ~
D @f@ E T@
t ~
D `f@ E IT@
u ~
D f@ E """"T@
v ~
D f@ E lS@
w ~
D f@ E -S@
x D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D f@ E """"S@
y ~
D g@ E S@
z ~
D g@ E wwwwR@
{ ~
D @g@ E DDDDR@
| ~
D `g@ E wwwwQ@
} ~
D g@ E llQ@
~ ~
D g@ E ffffQ@
~
D g@ E POQ@
~
D g@ E 3333Q@
~
D h@ E ` P@
~
D h@ E 8P@
~
D @h@ E UUUUP@
~
D `h@ E JIP@
~
D h@ E P@
~
D h@ E ` P@
~
D h@ E [O@
~
D h@ E O@
~
D i@ E UUUUO@
~
D i@ E [N@
~
D @i@ E ?>N@
~
D `i@ E DDDD?@
~
D i@ E O=@
~
D i@ E r q=@
~
D i@ E [[=@
~
D i@ E ><@
~
D j@ E <@
~
D j@ E O;@
~
D @j@ E ;@
~
D `j@ E ;@
~
D j@ E ll;@
~
D j@ E ffff;@
~
D j@ E """";@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D j@ E q ;@
~
D k@ E I:@
~
D k@ E '}:@
~
D @k@ E :@
~
D `k@ E :@
~
D k@ E :@
~
D k@ E r q:@
~
D k@ E ll:@
~
D k@ E DDDD:@
~
D l@ E ?>:@
~
D l@ E .-:@
~
D @l@ E (}':@
~
D `l@ E """":@
~
D l@ E :@
~
D l@ E [:@
~
D l@ E I9@
~
D l@ E 9@
~
D m@ E >9@
~
D m@ E '}9@
~
D @m@ E 89@
~
D `m@ E r q9@
~
D m@ E PO9@
~
D m@ E ?>9@
~
D m@ E l9@
~
D m@ E 9@
~
D n@ E 9@
~
D n@ E 9@
~
D @n@ E 88@
~
D `n@ E -8@
~
D n@ E '}8@
~
D n@ E 8@
~
D n@ E 8@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D n@ E ll8@
~
D o@ E ffff8@
~
D o@ E DDDD8@
( . . (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H p 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A [ 3
3 O Z 0
5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
M q 6 3 O M r ! % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < 8 d3t ?2L??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D Z0
^O ?p|'I? ?pD
+? % 333 P ` ? ? 3 O z 9 & Q
D o y o u t h i n k t h a t c h a r g i n g o n l y a f l a t f e e ( f o r e x a m p l e , $ 5 1 0 ) f o r a l l r e q u e s t e r s w o u l d r e d u c e t h e t i m e s p e n t o n d e t e r m i n i n g f e e i s s u e s ? ' R R < { H+q?55?
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S
> @ y z d d B 7 g g D
T8 D ' $0 8 4A I DR Z Jc k Pt | ܄
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
G
G
G
K
K
>
H H ~
@ `y@
L L `y@A `y@
I
I ?B ?
C
C
C
C ~
D ? E PO@
~
D @ E ` @
~
D @
E ` @
~
D @ E l؛@
~
D @ E .-՛@
~
D @
E >ћ@
~
D @ E lÛ@
~
D @ E @
~
D "@ E -@
~
D $@ E UUUU@
~
D &@ E @
~
D (@ E 8㴛@
~
D *@ E ` @
~
D ,@ E UUUU^@
~
D .@ E .-O@
~
D 0@ E UUUU<@
~
D 1@ E l:@
~
D 2@ E l9@
~
D 3@ E ` 5@
~
D 4@ E a `5@
~
D 5@ E [0@
~
D 6@ E DDDD @
~
D 7@ E -@
~
D 8@ E 8@
B X* * * $ $ 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D 9@ E @
~
! D :@ ! E ?>@
! ~
" D ;@ " E I@
" ~
# D <@ # E >@
# ~
$ D =@ $ E a `@
$ ~
% D >@ % E 8@
% ~
& D ?@ & E -@
& ~
' D @@ ' E }'}@
' ~
( D @@ ( E @
( ~
) D A@ ) E @
) ~
* D A@ * E -@
* ~
+ D B@ + E 8@
+ ~
, D B@ , E a `@
, ~
- D C@ - E O@
- ~
. D C@ . E l@
. ~
/ D D@ / E """"@
/ ~
0 D D@ 0 E [@
0 ~
1 D E@ 1 E ` @
1 ~
2 D E@ 2 E DDDD@
2 ~
3 D F@ 3 E I@
3 ~
4 D F@ 4 E PO@
4 ~
5 D G@ 5 E l@
5 ~
6 D G@ 6 E @
6 ~
7 D H@ 7 E @
7 ~
8 D H@ 8 E Iܚ@
8 ~
9 D I@ 9 E -ښ@
9 ~
: D I@ : E r qٚ@
: ~
; D J@ ; E a `ٚ@
; ~
< D J@ < E .-ٚ@
< ~
= D K@ = E q ؚ@
= ~
> D K@ > E r qؚ@
> ~
? D L@ ? E ?>ך@
? D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D L@ @ E .-֚@
@ ~
A D M@ A E l֚@
A E ~
B D M@ B E l՚@
B ~
C D N@ C E ?>՚@
C ~
D D N@ D E r qԚ@
D ~
E D O@ E E ` Ԛ@
E ~
F D O@ F E '}Ӛ@
F ~
G D P@ G E OҚ@
G ~
H D @P@ H E IҚ@
H ~
I D P@ I E 8Қ@
I ~
J D P@ J E -Қ@
J ~
K D Q@ K E >Қ@
K ~
L D @Q@ L E a `Қ@
L ~
M D Q@ M E (}'Қ@
M ~
N D Q@ N E -њ@
N ~
O D R@ O E -њ@
O ~
P D @R@ P E '}њ@
P ~
Q D R@ Q E Iњ@
Q ~
R D R@ R E [[њ@
R ~
S D S@ S E POњ@
S ~
T D @S@ T E .-њ@
T ~
U D S@ U E POК@
U ~
V D S@ V E ` К@
V ~
W D T@ W E wwwwΚ@
W ~
X D @T@ X E wwww͚@
X
~
Y D T@ Y E Iɚ@
Y ~
Z D T@ Z E PO|@
Z ~
[ D U@ [ E PO|@
[
~
\ D @U@ \ E ll{@
\ ~
] D U@ ] E 3333u@
] ~
^ D U@ ^ E ]@
^ ~
_ D V@ _ E .-]@
_ D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D @V@ ` E 8Z@
` ~
a D V@ a E 3333Z@
a ~
b D V@ b E DDDDX@
b ~
c D W@ c E OW@
c ~
d D @W@ d E -U@
d ~
e D W@ e E [[T@
e ~
f D W@ f E JIT@
f ~
g D X@ g E ` S@
g ~
h D @X@ h E OR@
h ~
i D X@ i E -N@
i ~
j D X@ j E ffff;@
j ~
k D Y@ k E O:@
k ~
l D @Y@ l E >7@
l ~
m D Y@ m E ll6@
m ~
n D Y@ n E ` 5@
n ~
o D Z@ o E I2@
o ~
p D @Z@ p E 1@
p ~
q D Z@ q E ?>1@
q ! ~
r D Z@ r E l1@
r " ~
s D [@ s E ` /@
s # ~
t D @[@ t E JI @
t ~
u D [@ u E 3333 @
u $ ~
v D [@ v E @
v % ~
w D \@ w E DDDD@
w & ~
x D @\@ x E @
x ' ~
y D \@ y E [[@
y ( ~
z D \@ z E 98@
z ) ~
{ D ]@ { E l@
{ * ~
| D @]@ | E ` @
| + ~
} D ]@ } E @
} , ~
~ D ]@ ~ E O@
~ - ~
D ^@ E @
. D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D @^@ E -@
/ ~
D ^@ E wwww@
0 ~
D ^@ E JI@
1 ~
D _@ E 3333@
2 ~
D @_@ E ` @
3 ~
D _@ E @
4 ~
D _@ E JI@
5 ~
D `@ E """"@
6 ~
D `@ E @
7 ~
D @`@ E PO@
8 ~
D ``@ E JI@
9 ~
D `@ E (}'@
~
D `@ E 8@
~
D `@ E >@
: ~
D `@ E >@
; ~
D a@ E q @
< ~
D a@ E [@
= ~
D @a@ E q @
> ~
D `a@ E r q@
? ~
D a@ E ll@
@ ~
D a@ E @
A ~
D a@ E @
B ~
D a@ E I@
C ~
D b@ E @
D ~
D b@ E (}'@
E ~
D @b@ E ?>@
F ~
D `b@ E I@
G ~
D b@ E }'}@
H ~
D b@ E r q@
I ~
D b@ E @
J ~
D b@ E q @
K ~
D c@ E """"v@
L D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D c@ E Ip@
M ~
D @c@ E """"]@
N ~
D `c@ E 9@
O ~
D c@ E 88@
P ~
D c@ E [8@
Q ~
D c@ E 6@
R ~
D c@ E -5@
z ~
D d@ E q 3@
S ~
D d@ E 3@
T ~
D @d@ E }'}2@
+ ~
D `d@ E 80@
U ~
D d@ E '}0@
V ~
D d@ E [@
~
D d@ E >@
W ~
D d@ E -@
X ~
D e@ E -@
~
D e@ E @
Y ~
D @e@ E I@
0 ~
D `e@ E JI@
Z ~
D e@ E JI@
[ ~
D e@ E @
\ ~
D e@ E [@
] ~
D e@ E -@
^ ~
D f@ E @
~
D f@ E """"@
~
D @f@ E .-@
_ ~
D `f@ E (}'@
` ~
D f@ E wwww@
a ~
D f@ E ݲ@
b ~
D f@ E @
c ~
D f@ E UUUU@
d ~
D g@ E ` @
+ D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D g@ E ffff@
e ~
D @g@ E l@
f ~
D `g@ E }'}@
g ~
D g@ E wwww@
h ~
D g@ E I@
i ~
D g@ E """"@
j ~
D g@ E 8㐘@
k ~
D h@ E (}'@
l ~
D h@ E ̏@
m ~
D @h@ E ̏@
n ~
D `h@ E q Ǐ@
o ~
D h@ E 8@
p ~
D h@ E a `@
q ~
D h@ E r q@
~
D h@ E {@
r ~
D i@ E }'}{@
s ~
D i@ E l{@
t ~
D @i@ E wwwwz@
u ~
D `i@ E y@
v ~
D i@ E Iy@
w ~
D i@ E }'}y@
x ~
D i@ E ` y@
y ~
D i@ E x@
z ~
D j@ E 8x@
{ ~
D j@ E q w@
| ~
D @j@ E llw@
} ~
D `j@ E UUUUw@
~
D j@ E JIw@
~
D j@ E ` w@
~
D j@ E w@
~ ~
D j@ E 8v@
~
D k@ E -v@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D k@ E [v@
~
D @k@ E 8v@
E ~
D `k@ E -v@
~
D k@ E wwwwv@
~
D k@ E .-v@
~
D k@ E q v@
~
D k@ E lv@
~
D l@ E u@
~
D l@ E u@
~
D @l@ E 8u@
~
D `l@ E [u@
~
D l@ E UUUUu@
~
D l@ E JIu@
~
D l@ E ?>u@
~
D l@ E ` u@
~
D m@ E DDDDt@
D m@E t@
~
D @m@ E s@
~
D `m@ E Is@
~
D m@ E s@
~
D m@ E r@
~
D m@ E llq@
~
D m@ E p@
~
D n@ E -p@
~
D n@ E r qp@
~
D @n@ E ` p@
~
D `n@ E o@
~
D n@ E 3333o@
y ~
D n@ E r qn@
~
D n@ E ffff`@
~
D n@ E I^@
~
D o@ E ]@
D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
D o@ E l]@
~
D @o@ E \@
~
D `o@ E I\@
E ~
D o@ E ` \@
~
D o@ E '}[@
~
D o@ E >[@
~
D o@ E IZ@
~
D p@ E 8Y@
~
D p@ E }'}Y@
~
D p@ E llY@
~
D 0p@
E (}'Y@
~
D @p@ E ` Y@
~
D Pp@ E X@
~
D `p@
E llX@
~
D pp@ E [[X@
~
D p@ E [X@
~
D p@ E -W@
~
D p@ E q W@
~
D p@ E OV@
~
D p@ E IV@
~
D p@ E 8V@
~
D p@ E r qV@
~
D p@ E ?>V@
~
D q@ E lV@
~
D q@ E 8U@
~
D q@ E [[U@
~
D 0q@ E POU@
~
D @q@ E DDDDU@
~
D Pq@ E q U@
~
D `q@ E ` U@
~
D pq@ E T@
~
D q@ E T@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D q@ E OT@
~
! D q@ ! E IT@
! ~
" D q@ " E r qT@
" ~
# D q@ # E POT@
# ~
$ D q@ $ E JIT@
$ ~
% D q@ % E """"T@
% ~
& D q@ & E """"T@
& + ~
' D r@ ' E T@
' ~
( D r@ ( E q S@
( ~
) D r@ ) E lS@
) ~
* D 0r@ * E S@
* ~
+ D @r@ + E S@
+ ~
, D Pr@ , E -S@
, ~
- D `r@ - E llS@
- ~
. D pr@ . E """"S@
. ~
/ D r@ / E S@
/ ~
0 D r@ 0 E IR@
0 ~
1 D r@ 1 E wwwwR@
1 ~
2 D r@ 2 E [[R@
2 ~
3 D r@ 3 E DDDDR@
3 ~
4 D r@ 4 E 8Q@
4 ~
5 D r@ 5 E '}Q@
5 ~
6 D r@ 6 E lQ@
6 ~
7 D s@ 7 E 8Q@
7 ~
8 D s@ 8 E wwwwQ@
8 ~
9 D s@ 9 E llQ@
9 ~
: D 0s@ : E ffffQ@
: ~
; D @s@ ; E POQ@
; ~
< D Ps@ < E DDDDQ@
< ~
= D `s@ = E 3333Q@
= ~
> D ps@ > E ` Q@
> , ~
? D s@ ? E ` P@
? D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D s@ @ E IP@
@ ~
A D s@ A E 8P@
A ~
B D s@ B E llP@
B ~
C D s@ C E UUUUP@
C ~
D D s@ D E JIP@
D ~
E D s@ E E P@
E ~
F D s@ F E ` P@
F ~
G D t@ G E ` O@
G ~
H D t@ H E [O@
H ~
I D t@ I E O@
I ~
J D 0t@ J E UUUUO@
J ~
K D @t@ K E 98O@
K E ~
L D Pt@ L E -N@
L E ~
M D `t@ M E [N@
M ~
N D pt@ N E N@
N ~
O D t@ O E -N@
O ~
P D t@ P E ?>N@
P ~
Q D t@ Q E .-N@
Q ~
R D t@ R E DDDD?@
R ~
S D t@ S E O=@
S ~
T D t@ T E -=@
T ~
U D t@ U E r q=@
U ~
V D t@ V E [[=@
V ~
W D u@ W E ><@
W ~
X D u@ X E ` <@
X ~
Y D u@ Y E .-<@
Y ~
Z D 0u@ Z E <@
Z [ D @u@E <@
[ ~
\ D Pu@ \ E O;@
\ ~
] D `u@ ] E O;@
] ~
^ D pu@ ^ E O;@
^ ~
_ D u@ _ E ;@
_ D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D u@ ` E >;@
` ~
a D u@ a E ;@
a ~
b D u@ b E ll;@
b ~
c D u@ c E ffff;@
c ~
d D u@ d E """";@
d ~
e D u@ e E q ;@
e ~
f D u@ f E I:@
f ~
g D v@ g E '}:@
g ~
h D v@ h E :@
h ~
i D v@ i E ` :@
i ~
j D 0v@ j E :@
j ~
k D @v@ k E :@
k ~
l D Pv@ l E r q:@
l ~
m D `v@ m E ll:@
m ~
n D pv@ n E ffff:@
n ~
o D v@ o E [[:@
o ~
p D v@ p E JI:@
p ~
q D v@ q E DDDD:@
q ~
r D v@ r E ?>:@
r ~
s D v@ s E 98:@
s ~
t D v@ t E .-:@
t ~
u D v@ u E .-:@
u ~
v D v@ v E (}':@
v
~
w D w@ w E """":@
w ~
x D w@ x E :@
x ~
y D w@ y E :@
y
~
z D 0w@ z E ` :@
z ~
{ D @w@ { E [:@
{ ~
| D Pw@ | E I9@
| ~
} D `w@ } E 9@
} ~
~ D pw@ ~ E >9@
~ ~
D w@ E -9@
E D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D w@ E '}9@
~
D w@ E 9@
~
D w@ E 9@
~
D w@ E O9@
~
D w@ E 89@
~
D w@ E r q9@
~
D w@ E [[9@
~
D x@ E PO9@
~
D x@ E ?>9@
~
D x@ E (}'9@
~
D 0x@ E (}'9@
~
D @x@ E l9@
~
D Px@ E 9@
~
D `x@ E 9@
~
D px@ E 9@
~
D x@ E 88@
~
D x@ E -8@
! ~
D x@ E '}8@
" ~
D x@ E I8@
# ~
D x@ E I8@
$ ~
D x@ E 8@
% ~
D x@ E 8@
& ~
D x@ E }'}8@
' ~
D y@ E wwww8@
( ~
D y@ E ll8@
~
D y@ E ffff8@
) ~
D 0y@ E a `8@
* ~
D @y@ E [[8@
~
D Py@ E PO8@
+ ~
D `y@ E DDDD8@
+ @ D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > @ 8 : d d 2 7 g g D
T8 D
( 6 F ι V \ b
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
G ,
G ,
G ,
K
K
>
H H ~
@ `y@
L L `y@A `y@
I
I ?B ?
C
C
C
C ~
D ? E PO@
- ~
D @ E ` @
. ~
D @
E ` @
/ ~
D @ E l؛@
0 ~
D @ E .-՛@
1 ~
D @
E >ћ@
2 ~
D @ E lÛ@
3 ~
D @ E @
4 ~
D "@ E -@
5 ~
D $@ E UUUU@
6 ~
D &@ E @
7 ~
D (@ E 8㴛@
8 ~
D *@ E ` @
9 ~
D ,@ E UUUU^@
: ~
D .@ E .-O@
; ~
D 0@ E UUUU<@
~
D 1@ E l:@
< ~
D 2@ E l9@
= ~
D 3@ E ` 5@
> ~
D 4@ E a `5@
? ~
D 5@ E [0@
@ ~
D 6@ E DDDD @
A ~
D 7@ E -@
B ~
D 8@ E 8@
C B X* * * $ $ 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D 9@ E @
D ~
! D :@ ! E ?>@
! E ~
" D ;@ " E I@
" F ~
# D <@ # E >@
# G ~
$ D =@ $ E a `@
$ H ~
% D >@ % E 8@
% I ~
& D ?@ & E -@
& J ~
' D @@ ' E }'}@
' K ~
( D @@ ( E @
( I ~
) D A@ ) E @
) L ~
* D A@ * E -@
* M ~
+ D B@ + E 8@
+ N ~
, D B@ , E a `@
, O ~
- D C@ - E O@
- P ~
. D C@ . E l@
. Q ~
/ D D@ / E """"@
/ R ~
0 D D@ 0 E [@
0 S ~
1 D E@ 1 E ` @
1 T ~
2 D E@ 2 E DDDD@
2 U ~
3 D F@ 3 E I@
3 V ~
4 D F@ 4 E PO@
4 W ~
5 D G@ 5 E l@
5 X ~
6 D G@ 6 E @
6 Y ~
7 D H@ 7 E @
7 Z ~
8 D H@ 8 E Iܚ@
8 [ ~
9 D I@ 9 E -ښ@
9 \ ~
: D I@ : E r qٚ@
: ] ~
; D J@ ; E a `ٚ@
; ~
< D J@ < E .-ٚ@
< ^ ~
= D K@ = E q ؚ@
= _ ~
> D K@ > E r qؚ@
> H ~
? D L@ ? E ?>ך@
? ` D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D L@ @ E .-֚@
@ a ~
A D M@ A E l֚@
A E ~
B D M@ B E l՚@
B ~
C D N@ C E ?>՚@
C b ~
D D N@ D E r qԚ@
D c ~
E D O@ E E ` Ԛ@
E d ~
F D O@ F E '}Ӛ@
F e ~
G D P@ G E OҚ@
G f ~
H D @P@ H E IҚ@
H g ~
I D P@ I E 8Қ@
I h ~
J D P@ J E -Қ@
J i ~
K D Q@ K E >Қ@
K 2 ~
L D @Q@ L E a `Қ@
L j ~
M D Q@ M E (}'Қ@
M k ~
N D Q@ N E -њ@
N ~
O D R@ O E -њ@
O l ~
P D @R@ P E '}њ@
P m ~
Q D R@ Q E Iњ@
Q n ~
R D R@ R E [[њ@
R o ~
S D S@ S E POњ@
S p ~
T D @S@ T E .-њ@
T q ~
U D S@ U E POК@
U r ~
V D S@ V E ` К@
V s ~
W D T@ W E wwwwΚ@
W t ~
X D @T@ X E wwww͚@
X u ~
Y D T@ Y E Iɚ@
Y v ~
Z D T@ Z E PO|@
Z w ~
[ D U@ [ E PO|@
[ x ~
\ D @U@ \ E ll{@
\ y ~
] D U@ ] E 3333u@
] z ~
^ D U@ ^ E ]@
^ { ~
_ D V@ _ E .-]@
_ | D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D @V@ ` E 8Z@
` } ~
a D V@ a E 3333Z@
a ~ ~
b D V@ b E DDDDX@
b ~
c D W@ c E OW@
c ~
d D @W@ d E -U@
d ~
e D W@ e E [[T@
e ~
f D W@ f E JIT@
f h ~
g D X@ g E ` S@
g ~
h D @X@ h E OR@
h I ~
i D X@ i E -N@
i ~
j D X@ j E ffff;@
j ~
k D Y@ k E O:@
k ~
l D @Y@ l E >7@
l ~
m D Y@ m E ll6@
m ~
n D Y@ n E ` 5@
n ~
o D Z@ o E I2@
o ~
p D @Z@ p E 1@
p ~
q D Z@ q E ?>1@
q ~
r D Z@ r E l1@
r h ~
s D [@ s E ` /@
s ~
t D @[@ t E JI @
t ~
u D [@ u E 3333 @
u ~
v D [@ v E @
v ~
w D \@ w E DDDD@
w ~
x D @\@ x E @
x ~
y D \@ y E [[@
y ~
z D \@ z E 98@
z ~
{ D ]@ { E l@
{ ~
| D @]@ | E ` @
| ~
} D ]@ } E @
} ~
~ D ]@ ~ E O@
~ . ~
D ^@ E @
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D @^@ E -@
~
D ^@ E wwww@
w ~
D ^@ E JI@
~
D _@ E 3333@
~
D @_@ E ` @
~
D _@ E @
~
D _@ E JI@
~
D `@ E """"@
~
D `@ E @
~
D @`@ E PO@
~
D ``@ E JI@
~
D `@ E (}'@
~
D `@ E 8@
~
D `@ E >@
~
D `@ E >@
~
D a@ E q @
~
D a@ E [@
~
D @a@ E q @
~
D `a@ E r q@
~
D a@ E ll@
~
D a@ E @
~
D a@ E @
~
D a@ E I@
~
D b@ E @
~
D b@ E (}'@
~
D @b@ E ?>@
~
D `b@ E I@
~
D b@ E }'}@
~
D b@ E r q@~
~
D b@ E @
~
D b@ E q @
~
D c@ E """"v@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D c@ E Ip@
~
D @c@ E """"]@
~
D `c@ E 9@
~
D c@ E 88@
~
D c@ E [8@
H ~
D c@ E 6@
~
D c@ E -5@
~
D d@ E q 3@
~
D d@ E 3@
~
D @d@ E }'}2@
+ ~
D `d@ E 80@
~
D d@ E '}0@
~
D d@ E [@
~
D d@ E >@
~
D d@ E -@
~
D e@ E -@
~
D e@ E @
+ ~
D @e@ E I@
H ~
D `e@ E JI@
~
D e@ E JI@
~
D e@ E @
~
D e@ E [@
~
D e@ E -@
~
D f@ E @
C ~
D f@ E """"@
~
D @f@ E .-@
~
D `f@ E (}'@
~
D f@ E wwww@
~
D f@ E ݲ@
H ~
D f@ E @
~
D f@ E UUUU@
~
D g@ E ` @
+ D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D g@ E ffff@
~
D @g@ E l@
~
D `g@ E }'}@
~
D g@ E wwww@
~
D g@ E I@
~
D g@ E """"@
~
D g@ E 8㐘@
~
D h@ E (}'@
~
D h@ E ̏@
~
D @h@ E ̏@
~
D `h@ E q Ǐ@
~
D h@ E 8@
~
D h@ E a `@
~
D h@ E r q@
~
D h@ E {@
~
D i@ E }'}{@
~
D i@ E l{@
~
D @i@ E wwwwz@
~
D `i@ E y@
~
D i@ E Iy@
~
D i@ E }'}y@
~
D i@ E ` y@
~
D i@ E x@
~
D j@ E 8x@
~
D j@ E q w@
~
D @j@ E llw@
~
D `j@ E UUUUw@
~
D j@ E JIw@
~
D j@ E ` w@
~
D j@ E w@
~
D j@ E 8v@
~
D k@ E -v@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D k@ E [v@
~
D @k@ E 8v@
~
D `k@ E -v@
~
D k@ E wwwwv@
~
D k@ E .-v@
~
D k@ E q v@
~
D k@ E lv@
~
D l@ E u@
~
D l@ E u@
~
D @l@ E 8u@
~
D `l@ E [u@
~
D l@ E UUUUu@
~
D l@ E JIu@
~
D l@ E ?>u@
~
D l@ E ` u@
~
D m@ E DDDDt@
D m@E t@
~
D @m@ E s@
~
D `m@ E Is@
~
D m@ E s@
~
D m@ E r@
~
D m@ E llq@
~
D m@ E p@
~
D n@ E -p@
~
D n@ E r qp@
~
D @n@ E ` p@
~
D `n@ E o@
~
D n@ E 3333o@
~
D n@ E r qn@
~
D n@ E ffff`@
~
D n@ E I^@
~
D o@ E ]@
D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
D o@ E l]@
~
D @o@ E \@
~
D `o@ E I\@
~
D o@ E ` \@
~
D o@ E '}[@
~
D o@ E >[@
~
D o@ E IZ@
~
D p@ E 8Y@
~
D p@ E }'}Y@
~
D p@ E llY@
+ ~
D 0p@
E (}'Y@
~
D @p@ E ` Y@
~
D Pp@ E X@
~
D `p@
E llX@
~
D pp@ E [[X@
~
D p@ E [X@
~
D p@ E -W@
~
D p@ E q W@
~
D p@ E OV@
~
D p@ E IV@
~
D p@ E 8V@
~
D p@ E r qV@
~
D p@ E ?>V@
~
D q@ E lV@
~
D q@ E 8U@
~
D q@ E [[U@
~
D 0q@ E POU@
! ~
D @q@ E DDDDU@
" ~
D Pq@ E q U@
~
D `q@ E ` U@
# ~
D pq@ E T@
$ ~
D q@ E T@
% D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D q@ E OT@
& ~
! D q@ ! E IT@
! ' ~
" D q@ " E r qT@
" ( ~
# D q@ # E POT@
# ) ~
$ D q@ $ E JIT@
$ * ~
% D q@ % E """"T@
% + ~
& D q@ & E """"T@
& , ~
' D r@ ' E T@
' - ~
( D r@ ( E q S@
( . ~
) D r@ ) E lS@
) / ~
* D 0r@ * E S@
* 0 ~
+ D @r@ + E S@
+ 1 ~
, D Pr@ , E -S@
, 2 ~
- D `r@ - E llS@
- 3 ~
. D pr@ . E """"S@
. 4 ~
/ D r@ / E S@
/ 5 ~
0 D r@ 0 E IR@
0 6 ~
1 D r@ 1 E wwwwR@
1 7 ~
2 D r@ 2 E [[R@
2 8 ~
3 D r@ 3 E DDDDR@
3 9 ~
4 D r@ 4 E 8Q@
4 ~
5 D r@ 5 E '}Q@
5 ~
6 D r@ 6 E lQ@
6 : ~
7 D s@ 7 E 8Q@
7 ; ~
8 D s@ 8 E wwwwQ@
8 < ~
9 D s@ 9 E llQ@
9 = ~
: D 0s@ : E ffffQ@
: > ~
; D @s@ ; E POQ@
; ? ~
< D Ps@ < E DDDDQ@
< @ ~
= D `s@ = E 3333Q@
= A ~
> D ps@ > E ` Q@
> B ~
? D s@ ? E ` P@
? C D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D s@ @ E IP@
@ D ~
A D s@ A E 8P@
A E ~
B D s@ B E llP@
B F ~
C D s@ C E UUUUP@
C G ~
D D s@ D E JIP@
D H ~
E D s@ E E P@
E b ~
F D s@ F E ` P@
F I ~
G D t@ G E ` O@
G J ~
H D t@ H E [O@
H 2 ~
I D t@ I E O@
I K ~
J D 0t@ J E UUUUO@
J L ~
K D @t@ K E 98O@
K M ~
L D Pt@ L E -N@
L N ~
M D `t@ M E [N@
M O ~
N D pt@ N E N@
N ~
O D t@ O E -N@
O P ~
P D t@ P E ?>N@
P Q ~
Q D t@ Q E .-N@
Q w ~
R D t@ R E DDDD?@
R R ~
S D t@ S E O=@
S S ~
T D t@ T E -=@
T T ~
U D t@ U E r q=@
U U ~
V D t@ V E [[=@
V V ~
W D u@ W E ><@
W W ~
X D u@ X E ` <@
X . ~
Y D u@ Y E .-<@
Y X ~
Z D 0u@ Z E <@
Z Y [ D @u@E <@
[ Z ~
\ D Pu@ \ E O;@
\ ~
] D `u@ ] E O;@
] [ ~
^ D pu@ ^ E O;@
^ \ ~
_ D u@ _ E ;@
_ b D 6 l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D u@ ` E >;@
` B ~
a D u@ a E ;@
a 2 ~
b D u@ b E ll;@
b ] ~
c D u@ c E ffff;@
c ^ ~
d D u@ d E """";@
d _ ~
e D u@ e E q ;@
e ` ~
f D u@ f E I:@
f a ~
g D v@ g E '}:@
g b ~
h D v@ h E :@
h c ~
i D v@ i E ` :@
i d ~
j D 0v@ j E :@
j e ~
k D @v@ k E :@
k f ~
l D Pv@ l E r q:@
l g ~
m D `v@ m E ll:@
m h ~
n D pv@ n E ffff:@
n i ~
o D v@ o E [[:@
o j ~
p D v@ p E JI:@
p k ~
q D v@ q E DDDD:@
q l ~
r D v@ r E ?>:@
r m ~
s D v@ s E 98:@
s n ~
t D v@ t E .-:@
t ~
u D v@ u E .-:@
u o ~
v D v@ v E (}':@
v p ~
w D w@ w E """":@
w q ~
x D w@ x E :@
x r ~
y D w@ y E :@
y s ~
z D 0w@ z E ` :@
z I ~
{ D @w@ { E [:@
{ t ~
| D Pw@ | E I9@
| u ~
} D `w@ } E 9@
} v ~
~ D pw@ ~ E >9@
~ w ~
D w@ E -9@
E D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D w@ E '}9@
l ~
D w@ E 9@
2 ~
D w@ E 9@
~
D w@ E O9@
x ~
D w@ E 89@
y ~
D w@ E r q9@
z ~
D w@ E [[9@
{ ~
D x@ E PO9@
| ~
D x@ E ?>9@
} ~
D x@ E (}'9@
~ ~
D 0x@ E (}'9@
~
D @x@ E l9@
~
D Px@ E 9@
~
D `x@ E 9@
~
D px@ E 9@
~
D x@ E 88@
~
D x@ E -8@
~
D x@ E '}8@
~
D x@ E I8@
~
D x@ E I8@
2 ~
D x@ E 8@
~
D x@ E 8@
~
D x@ E }'}8@
~
D y@ E wwww8@
~
D y@ E ll8@
~
D y@ E ffff8@
~
D 0y@ E a `8@
~
D @y@ E [[8@
~
D Py@ E PO8@
~
D `y@ E DDDD8@
+ @ D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > @ 8 : d d 2 7 g g D
T8 $ ( !
d MbP?_ * + % & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? & U }
} # }
@ @ X @
J
J
J
J
G
G
G
G
K
K
>
>
H y
H y ?
+?~
@ b@
H z
H z ? ~jt?~
@ Pp@
H {
H { M b@F b@
L
L L `y@A `y@
I
I
I ?B ?
C
C
C {
C ~
D ?
E ` @
~
D @ E l؛@
~
D @ E -@
~
D @
E @
~
D @ E 8㴛@
~
D @ E UUUU^@
~
D @ E l9@
~
D @ E DDDD @
~
D "@ E ?>@
~
D $@ E >@
~
D &@ E @
~
D (@ E 8@
~
D *@ E a `@
~
D ,@ E """"@
~
D .@ E [@
~
D 0@ E PO@
~
D 1@ E @
~
D 2@ E @
~
D 3@ E -ښ@
~
D 4@ E q ؚ@
~
D 5@ E ?>ך@
~
D 6@ E l֚@
B N X8 8 8 < < 2 2 2 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? ~
D 7@ E ` Ԛ@
~
! D 8@ ! E OҚ@
! ~
" D 9@ " E -Қ@
" ~
# D :@ # E a `Қ@
# ~
$ D ;@ $ E (}'Қ@
$ ~
% D <@ % E Iњ@
% ~
& D =@ & E wwwwΚ@
& ~
' D >@ ' E Iɚ@
' ~
( D ?@ ( E ll{@
( ~
) D @@ ) E ]@
) ~
* D @@ * E .-]@
* ~
+ D A@ + E 3333Z@
+ ~
, D A@ , E OW@
, ~
- D B@ - E -U@
- ~
. D B@ . E [[T@
. ~
/ D C@ / E O:@
/ ~
0 D C@ 0 E ll6@
0 ~
1 D D@ 1 E I2@
1 ~
2 D D@ 2 E 1@
2 ~
3 D E@ 3 E ?>1@
3 ~
4 D E@ 4 E @
4 ~
5 D F@ 5 E 98@
5 ~
6 D F@ 6 E l@
6 ~
7 D G@ 7 E ` @
7 ~
8 D G@ 8 E @
8 ~
9 D H@ 9 E O@
9 ~
: D H@ : E @
: ~
; D I@ ; E @
; ~
< D I@ < E """"@
< ~
= D J@ = E @
= ~
> D J@ > E PO@
> ~
? D K@ ? E 8@
? D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ~
@ D K@ @ E q @
@ ~
A D L@ A E [@
A ~
B D L@ B E ll@
B ~
C D M@ C E @
C ~
D D M@ D E @
D ~
E D N@ E E @
E ~
F D N@ F E """"v@
F ~
G D O@ G E Ip@
G ~
H D O@ H E q 3@
H ~
I D P@ I E 80@
I ~
J D @P@ J E -@
J ~
K D P@ K E @
K ~
L D P@ L E @
L ~
M D Q@ M E ` @
M ~
N D @Q@ N E ffff@
N ~
O D Q@ O E wwww@
O ~
P D Q@ P E """"@
P ~
Q D R@ Q E 8㐘@
Q ~
R D @R@ R E ̏@
R ~
S D R@ S E l{@
S ~
T D R@ T E }'}y@
T ~
U D S@ U E ` y@
U ~
V D @S@ V E q w@
V ~
W D S@ W E llw@
W ~
X D S@ X E w@
X ~
Y D T@ Y E 8v@
Y ~
Z D @T@ Z E -v@
Z ~
[ D T@ [ E wwwwv@
[ ~
\ D T@ \ E lv@
\ ~
] D U@ ] E [u@
] ~
^ D @U@ ^ E DDDDt@
^ ~
_ D U@ _ E Is@
_ D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ~
` D U@ ` E r qp@
` ~
a D V@ a E o@
a ~
b D @V@ b E r qn@
b ~
c D V@ c E ` \@
c ~
d D V@ d E '}[@
d ~
e D W@ e E >[@
e ~
f D @W@ f E }'}Y@
f ~
g D W@ g E (}'Y@
g ~
h D W@ h E ` Y@
h ~
i D X@ i E X@
i ~
j D @X@ j E OV@
j ~
k D X@ k E IV@
k ~
l D X@ l E 8U@
l ~
m D Y@ m E POU@
m ~
n D @Y@ n E JIT@
n ~
o D Y@ o E q S@
o ~
p D Y@ p E lS@
p ~
q D Z@ q E S@
q ~
r D @Z@ r E """"S@
r ~
s D Z@ s E DDDDR@
s ~
t D Z@ t E lQ@
t ~
u D [@ u E wwwwQ@
u ~
v D @[@ v E llQ@
v ~
w D [@ w E POQ@
w ~
x D [@ x E 3333Q@
x ~
y D \@ y E ` P@
y ~
z D @\@ z E IP@
z ~
{ D \@ { E 8P@
{ ~
| D \@ | E UUUUP@
| ~
} D ]@ } E P@
} ~
~ D @]@ ~ E ` P@
~ ~
D ]@ E UUUUO@
D @ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
D ]@ E [N@
~
D ^@ E ?>N@
~
D @^@ E .-N@
~
D ^@ E O=@
~
D ^@ E r q=@
~
D _@ E [[=@
~
D @_@ E ` <@
D _@E <@
~
D _@ E O;@
~
D `@ E """";@
~
D `@ E q ;@
~
D @`@ E '}:@
~
D ``@ E r q:@
~
D `@ E [[:@
~
D `@ E .-:@
~
D `@ E """":@
~
D `@ E I9@
~
D a@ E 9@
~
D a@ E >9@
~
D @a@ E 9@
~
D `a@ E O9@
~
D a@ E r q9@
~
D a@ E PO9@
~
D a@ E ?>9@
~
D a@ E (}'9@
~
D b@ E 9@
~
D b@ E 9@
~
D @b@ E 9@
~
D `b@ E 88@
~
D b@ E -8@
~
D b@ E '}8@
~
D b@ E 8@
! D 6 l. . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (
n
c 4 N C h a r t 1 ] @ T8 P P PZaajk & ?' ?( ?) ? " ? ? 3 & P H 0 (
3 d 2 3 333 ?
M 4 3 Q Q ; Q ; Q 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
M M < 4 3 _ 333 ?
3f M M < 4 E 4 D $ % 333 0 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 $ % 333 ? p$ 3 O &
Q 4 F A
3 O
5 2 3 M
M 4 3 "
M 6 3 O M ! % 333 0 ? 3 O & Q 4 2 3 333 ?
f @ "B ` 4 R R
R R R R R R < _ d3t ?2 *??T
/ S S 4 S S 4 S S 4 D
Y ?H?/?&=? % 333 v P ? ? 3 O ( & Q
^A r e t h e r e a n y o t h e r F O I A i s s u e s o r t o p i c s t h a t y o u w o u l d l i k e u s t o a d d r e s s i n f u t u r e s u r v e y s ? ' R R < d3t ?55?
/ S S 4
[ S S
4 e e e * v e n - U S
> @ " d d B 7 g g D
Oh +'0 8 @ X l
x Kellie Shipley Christa L. @ Ψ/@ jf ՜. +,0 < H P X ` h p
x
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Worksheets
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~
! " # $ % & ' R o o t E n t r y F W o r k b o o k / S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8