40 C.F.R. § 2.102

Procedures for making requests

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) EPA employees may attempt in good faith to comply with oral requests for inspection or disclosure of EPA records that are publicly available under § 2.201(a) and (b), but such requests are not subject to the FOIA or this Part.

(b)(1) Requesters must reasonably describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable a professional employee of the Agency who is familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort.

(2) If EPA determines that a request does not reasonably describe the requested records as provided in § 2.102(b)(1), EPA will tell the requester either what additional information the requester needs to provide or why the request is otherwise insufficient. EPA will also give the requester an opportunity to discuss and modify the request to meet the requirements of § 2.102(b)(1). If the requester fails to modify the request to meet the requirements of § 2.102(b)(1) within 20 calendar days, EPA will not process the submission and close the request. If the requester does modify the request to meet the requirements of § 2.102(b)(1), EPA will consider the request received as of the date the modification is received by EPA.

(3) Whenever possible, a request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter. If known, the requester should include any file designations or descriptions for the records that the requester wants. The more specific the requester is about the records or type of records that the requester wants, the more likely EPA will be able to identify and locate records responsive to the request.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Hall & Assocs. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 83 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2015).
Hall & Assocs. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 83 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 5× “40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (c). Hall’s October 22 Requests, as originally formulated, were not proper requests.”
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 383 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 552 (a)(3)(A), and that, under the EPA's FOIA regulations, "[i]f [the agency] determines that [a] request does not reasonably describe the records, it [must] tell [the requester] what additional information [the requester] need[s] to provide or why [the] request is otherwise…”
Hall & Assocs. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 210 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “If EPA believes the requests ■ as amended are still not sufficiently clear, it must allow Hall to further clarify or modify the requests in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (c).” Id. at 102-04 . The court made no ruling as to the sufficiency of the December 20, 2012 language,…”
Landmark Legal Found. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 272 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2003). “§ 552 (a)(3)(A) (requiring FOIA requester to reasonably describe records sought); 40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (‘Tour request should reasonably describe the records you are seeking in a way that will permit EPA employees to identify and locate them.”
Oversight v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 552 (a)(3) and 40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (c). Pl.'s Ex. 4. The email specified further that the request "fail[ed] to provide details such as the subject matters, titles[,] or key terms.”
Am. Oversight v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 552 (a)(3) and 40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (c). Pl.’s Ex. 4. The email specified further that the request “fail[ed] to provide details such as the subject matters, titles[,] or key terms.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D.D.C. 2019). “§ 552 (a)(3)(A), and that, under the EPA’s FOIA regulations, “[i]f [the agency] determines that [a] request does not reasonably describe the records, it [must] tell [the requester] what additional information [the requester] need[s] to provide or why [the] request is otherwise…”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Env't Prot. Agency (D.D.C. 2022). “EcoRights specifically challenges the changes made to 40 C.F.R. §§ 2.102 (c), 2.104(c), 2.104(f), and 2.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 2.102(c) — 2 cases
Hall & Assocs. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 83 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2015). “40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (c). Hall’s October 22 Requests, as originally formulated, were not proper requests.”
Hall & Assocs. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 210 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.D.C. 2016). “If EPA believes the requests ■ as amended are still not sufficiently clear, it must allow Hall to further clarify or modify the requests in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 2.102 (c).” Id. at 102-04 . The court made no ruling as to the sufficiency of the December 20, 2012 language,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.