the requested documents, much less process them for release. Contrary to what some may imagine, there is no machine which reproduces in a matter of minutes all the requested information contained in any one or more of the millions of FBI files. Often we must review many documents which contain information concerning other individuals as well as the requester.

The ability to respond to requests within an

extremely short time period depends largely on the sensitivity of the records the agency's duties and functions require it to maintain. The FBI must review its records with extreme care prior to releasing them. That review entails a page-by-page, line-by-line examination of each document. To proceed in any other manner would jeopardize classified data, valid law enforcement interests, and third-party privacy considerations.

The volume and nature of work involved and, to an extent the limited resources available, render it impossible for the FBI to meet the 10-day time limit. As the General Accounting Office concluded after a 14-month review of our operations, "Considering the nature of the information gathered by the FBI, the processing of requests within 10 working days will probably never become a reality." ness and Completeness of FBI Responses to Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts Requests Have Improved," page 12

"Timeli

of a Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, April 10, 1978.

The General Accounting Office determined the FBI appeared to be making every effort to reduce the response time and it is noteworthy the Comptroller General did not recommend any administrative or managerial changes to reduce

that time.

Our failure to meet the time limits does more than place us in the unseemly posture of failing to be in strict compliance with the law. It creates a vicious circle.

When

we miss a deadline the person who requested the records can file a lawsuit. Time spent responding to the lawsuit naturally results in time lost responding to the requests of others. That in turn delays even more our responding to those other requests.

The conclusion appears inescapable. The time

limit provisions should be modified.

Proposal

read:

We propose subsection (a) (6) (A) be amended to "Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall

-

(i) notify the person making the request of the receipt of the request and notify the person making the request within 30 days after receipt of the request of the number of pages encompassed by the request and the time limits imposed by this subsection upon the agency for responding to the request; determine whether to comply with the request and notify the person making the request of such determination and the reasons therefor within 60 days from receipt of the request (excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays) if the request encompasses less than 200 pages of records with an additional 60 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays) permitted for each additional 200 pages of records encompassed by the request, but all determinations and notifications shall be made within one year; and notify the person making the request of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination;

" (C) Any person making a request to any agency for records under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph. If the Government can show exceptional circumstances exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in attempting to respond to the request, the court shall allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records...."

Commentary

Our proposal has two main features. It would establish a relationship between the amount of work required to respond to a request and the amount of time permitted to do the work. It would insure we would be granted additional time to respond to requests if exceptional circumstances exist and if we are exercising due diligence.

Our current practices of acknowledging receipt of the request promptly and notifying the requester at the outset if we do not have any records concerning the subject matter of his request would not be affected.

The proposal would require us to notify the requester within 30 days of the number of pages encompassed by his request and to inform him of the applicable time limits.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances the pro

posal would permit no more than 60 working days to process every 200 pages of records encompassed by the request. Because some requests require the review of thousands of pages and the proposed schedule could result in a prolonged response time, we suggest the imposition of a maximum time limit of one year, absent exceptional circumstances.

Although we are convinced making the time limits proportional to the amount of work required is a sound idea, we are not wedded either to the 60-day: 200-page ratio or the one year maximum limitation. We propose that schedule with the

realization the subsection under consideration applies to all Executive agencies, not just to those which, like ours, must review extremely sensitive records in a detailed, careful, and time-consuming manner.

If we were able to begin working on requests as soon as they are received, we could process most, but not all of them within the proposed time limits. Because we could not meet the 60-day: 200-page deadline in exceptionally complex cases, or the one year maximum limit in exceptionally large requests, or either when confronted with other exceptional circumstances, our proposal would make clear we will be given additional time if we can show the court there are exceptional circumstances and that we are exercising due diligence in attempting to respond to the request.

6