[ATF seems willing to go to extreme lengths to deny there are documents 
that the NFA Branch uses to define and identify errors in the NFRTR, as 
well as written/documented procedures to correct and/or amend the NFRTR. 
Perhaps if this is the case, the lack of the foregoing documented 
procedures could mean that the NFA Branch clerks who process NFA 
documents, and enter the corresponding information into the computer, may 
not be applying these procedures uniformly or correctly.  In fact, on 
page ii of the Treasury Department Inspector General's (IG) report dated 
December 18, 1998, the IG stated: "ATF did not always control or process 
checks, forms, and other documents in accordance with procedures because 
employees did not always adhere to the procedures."  Now, ATF would have 
us believe there actually are not any written procedures to guide NFA 
Branch clerks in their work. --Eric Larson]



			DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
		BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
			WASHINGTON, D.C.  20226

Assistant 
Director		JAN 18 1999 [sic, year is supposed to be 2000]

								CC-58,987

Mr. Eric M. Larson
Post Office Box 5497
Takoma Park, Maryland 20913

Dear Mr. Larson:

This is in response to your appeal from the decision of the Disclosure 
Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. section 552.  After a careful 
review of this matter, we have determined that your appeal should be 
denied.

By letter dated May 15, 1999, you requested a copy of two National 
Firearms Act (NFA) data manuals.  Specifically, you requested the 
"National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record: Standard Operating 
Procedures - General" and the "National Firearms Registration and 
Transfer Record Standard Operating Procedures - Quality Review."

By letter dated June 29, 1999, the Disclosure Division released a 
459-page package of responsive documents with certain information 
redacted under exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA and with specified pages 
completely withheld under exemptions (b)(3) and (b)(7)(C).

By letters dated July 19 and 19, 1999, you indicated that particular 
pages referenced in the June 29 disclosure were not released and were 
withheld without a corresponding exemption under the FOIA.  Specifically, 
you requested copies of the documents referenced on pages 174 through 191 
of the release which correspond to Exhibits 11 through 29 of the 
"National Firearms Branch Standard Operating Procedures/Users Manual 
(Quality Review)."

Page 2

Mr. Eric M. Larson

By letter dated October 19, 1999, the Disclosure Division indicated that 
the exhibits referenced on pages 174 through 191 were not yet created and 
that there was no additional information to disclose.  You were 
specifically apprised of your right to file an administrative appeal.

By letter dated October 29, 1999, you appealed the decision of the 
Disclosure Division regarding pages 174 through 191.  You assert that the 
exhibits must have been created because they related to procedures that 
must be followed in transferring and registering NFA firearms as well as 
in amending the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record 
database to correct errors.  Therefore, you assert that the Disclosure 
Division did not adequately search for the responsive records.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 552(a)(3)(A), agencies are required to make 
records available to any person who makes a request that reasonably 
describes the records being sought.  Section 552(a)(3)(A) was designed to 
ensure that an [sic] FOIA request description be adequate for an employee 
of the agency who is familiar with the subject area of the request to 
locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort.

It is well-established that the adequacy of an agency's search under the 
FOIA is evaluated under a "reasonableness" test. _See Fitzgibbon v. 
United States Secret Service_, 747 F. Supp. 51, 54 (D.D.C 1990).  The 
search need only be reasonable, it does not have to be exhaustive. 
_Miller v. Department of State_, 779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1985).

Courts generally evaluate the reasonableness of a search by reviewing the 
agency's retrieval efforts in light of the parameters specified in the 
request.  Although the reasonableness of a search is determined on a 
case-by-case basis, the issue is not whether any documents might 
conceivably exist, but rather, whether the Government's

page 3

Mr. Eric M. Larson

search for responsive documents was adequate. _Truitt v. Department of 
State_, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990).  The adequacy of the search is not 
undercut by a requester's speculative claim that other records "must 
exist" due to the importance of the subject matter of the request. _See 
Oglesby v. Department of the Army_, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

In light of the above legal standards, the question to be resolved in the 
present case is whether the search was reasonable.  In response to your 
FOIA request, the Disclosure Division contacted the National Firearms 
Branch in search of the requested records.  As indicated in the release 
to you, the subject pages in requested manuals bear the notation, "ISD 
WILL PROVIDE EXHIBIT."  The fact is that the exhibits referenced on pages 
174 through 191 have not yet been created.  Under the FOIA, an agency is 
not obligated to create records, such at [sic] the exhibits requested, in 
order to respond to a request. _See Goldgar v. Office of Admin._, 26 F3d 
32, 35 (5th Cir. 1994).

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, the FOIA provides that you 
may seek judicial review in the United States district court in the 
district in which you reside, where your principal place of business is 
located, where the records are maintained, or in the District of 
Columbia.  5 U.S.C. section 552(a)(4).

				Sincerely yours,

				(signed--David L. Benton)

				David L. Benton
				Assistant Director
			(Liaison and Public Information}