Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
March 15, 2018
DA 18-259
Mr. James Chelmowski
6650 N. Northwest Hwy
Chicago, IL  60631
jchelmowski@comcast.net
Re:  FOIA Control No. 2018-311
Dear Mr. Chelmowski:
This is in response to your application for review
1
 of the Office of the Managing 
Director’s (OMD) response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, FOIA 
Control No. 2018-311.  By this letter, we dismiss your application for review for failing 
to raise grounds meriting Commission review.
In your request, you seek “Electronic copy of the slides, handouts, notes, details, etc. 
from the following: 1) Joint FCC/Department of Justice FOIA Training (That was 
Tentatively Scheduled, February 21-22, 2017) – This joint training program covers FOIA 
procedural requirements, an overview of FOIA exemptions (with a focus on those 
exemptions most relied on by Commission staff), the use of proactive disclosures, fees 
and fee waivers, and administrative appeals and dispute resolution. 2) FCC FOIA 
Improvement Act Meeting (July 20, 2016) – This high-level meeting discusses changes 
made to the FOIA in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, along with how those changes 
will impact FCC FOIA operations.”
2
  On February 6, 2018, OMD staff responded to your 
request, providing you with 194 pages of responsive records.
3
  Certain records were 
redacted under FOIA Exemption 4 and FOIA Exemption 5.
On February 15, 2018, you appealed OMD’s FOIA response.  You raise five arguments.  
Each argument is separately addressed and dismissed below.
First, you argue that OMD failed “to provide the total number of responsive pages found 
in the alleged FOIA search” and you contend the Commission “did not provide the total 
pages found only the pages released.”
4
  The Response Letter states that Commission staff 
1
 See E-mail from James Chelmowski to FOIA-Appeal@fcc.gov (Feb. 15, 2018) (Appeal).  
2
 FOIA 2018-311 (filed Jan. 10, 2018) (Initial Request).
3
 See Letter from Vanessa Lamb, Acting Associate Managing Director, Federal Communications 
Commission, to James Chelmowski (Feb. 8, 2018) (Response Letter).
4
 Appeal at 3.
Mr. James Chelmowski
Page 2
“located 194 pages of records responsive to your request.”
5
  Your argument is factually 
incorrect, and therefore fails to raise grounds meriting Commission review.
Second, you claim that OMD conducted an inadequate search and/or improperly withheld 
documents
6
 responsive to your request.
7
  Specifically, your argument hinges on the 
failure to provide “communications and/or e-mails” that were referenced in the 
responsive documents you received.  However, your FOIA request was limited to “slides, 
handouts, notes, details, etc.”
8
  Your initial request did not seek e-mails or 
communications and any such communications would be outside the scope of your 
request.  As you did not request these records as an initial matter, you have no grounds to 
appeal the exclusion of them in the response.  This argument is dismissed accordingly.
Third, you argue that certain information was improperly redacted under Exemption 4.  
In particular, you complain that OMD failed to explain how “the FCC’s handling and 
training on FOIA are ‘trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained 
from a person and privileged or confidential.’”
9
  As stated in the Response Letter, the 
only material redacted under Exemption 4 consisted of “conference call numbers and 
access codes.”
10
  You do not provide any argument as to why you believe the OMD staff 
erred in redacting this information.  Therefore, you have failed to raise any argument 
suitable for Commission review.
Fourth, you argue that the Commission “must explain how the FCC’s handling and FCC 
training on compliance of the FOIA are ‘attorney-client privilege.’”
11
  As stated in 
OMD’s response to your initial FOIA request, the records consisted of “an attorney in the 
Commission’s Office of General Counsel providing advice to client bureaus and offices 
regarding the then newly passed FOIA improvement Act of 2016.”
12
  You do not raise 
any argument as to how this redaction and accompanying reasoning is in error.
13
  
Therefore, you have failed to raise any argument suitable for Commission review.
Fifth, you ask a series of questions centered on why the Commission has dismissed your 
prior appeals of FOIA requests.
14
  These questions do not allege any error by OMD, and 
thus fail to raise grounds for review of OMD’s decision.  We refer you to the 
5
 Response Letter at 1.
6
 No documents were withheld in response to your FOIA request.
7
 Appeal at 3.
8
 Initial Request.
9
 Appeal at 3.
10
 Response Letter at 1.
11
 Appeal at 4.
12
 Response Letter at 1.
13
 While the Appeal makes vague reference to the crime fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, you 
make no argument as to how that legal doctrine is applicable here.  Appeal at 4.
14
 Appeal at 4-5.
Mr. James Chelmowski
Page 3
Commission’s prior dismissal letters
15
 and the language above, which explain why the 
Commission reached its conclusions.  
As described above, your appeal provides no specific grounds for disputing OMD’s 
response to FOIA 2018-311 that was not already addressed in the Response Letter.  You 
do not elaborate on the reason for your appeal or how you believe OMD erred in 
responding to your request.  You have not presented any argument that merits 
Commission review.  Therefore, we dismiss your application for review under section 
0.251(j) of the Commission’s rules for failure to articulate specific grounds for review.
16
 
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), we notify you of the provisions for judicial 
review under paragraph (a)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act.
17
  We note that as part 
of the Open Government Act of 2007, the Office of Government Information Services 
(OGIS) was created to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA 
requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS 
services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. You may contact OGIS in any of 
the following ways: 
Office of Government Information Services
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road–OGIS
College Park, MD 20740-6001
202-741-5770
877-684-6448
ogis@nara.gov 
ogis.archives.gov
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr.
General Counsel 
Office of General Counsel
cc: FOIA Officer
15
 Letter from Brendan Carr, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, to James 
Chelmowski, 32 FCC Rcd 5804, 5808 (Aug. 3, 2017); Letter from Thomas Johnson, General Counsel, 
Federal Communications Commission, to James Chelmowski, 32 FCC Rcd 9302, 9305 (Nov. 3, 2017).
16
 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.251(j) (as the Commission’s Chief FOIA Officer, “the General Counsel is delegated 
authority to dismiss FOIA applications for review that are untimely, repetitious, or fail to articulate specific 
grounds for review”). 
17
 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (“On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which 
the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, 
or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to 
order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.”)