43 C.F.R. § 2.15

What is multitrack processing and how does it affect your request?

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

(a) Bureaus use processing tracks to distinguish simple requests from more complex ones on the basis of the estimated number of workdays needed to process the request.

(b) In determining the number of workdays needed to process the request, the bureau considers factors such as the number of pages involved in processing the request or the need for consultations.

(c) The basic processing tracks are assigned according to the expected complexity of the collection/review/production process of each request and designated as follows:

(1) Simple: requests in this track would generally take between one to five workdays to process;

(2) Normal: requests in this track would generally take between six to twenty workdays to process;

(3) Complex: requests in this track would generally take between twenty-one workdays and sixty workdays to process; or

(4) Extraordinary: requests in this track involve very complex processing challenges, which may include a large number of potentially responsive records, and would generally take over sixty workdays to process.

(d) Bureaus also have a specific processing track for requests that are granted expedited processing under the standards in § 2.20 of this part. These requests will be processed as soon as practicable.

(e) Bureaus must advise you of the track into which your request falls and, when appropriate, will offer you an opportunity to narrow your request so that it can be placed in a different processing track. If you request placement in a particular processing track but the bureau places you in a different processing track, the bureau will provide you with an explanation of why you were not placed in the processing track you requested.

(f) The use of multitrack processing does not alter the statutory deadline for a bureau to determine whether to comply with your FOIA request (see § 2.16 of this part).

(g) You may track the status of your request, including its estimated processing completion date, at https://foia.doi.gov/requeststatus/.

[77 FR 76902, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 11128, Mar. 3, 2016; 81 FR 92694, Dec. 20, 2016; 84 FR 61827, Nov. 14, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1996–2004 · leading case: Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). “30, 1987) (now superseded). However, regulations published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2002, superseded those relied upon by defendants.”

Ellis v. United States, 941 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Utah 1996). “See 43 C.F.R. § 2.15 (a). Plaintiffs assert that their request was not limited-to documents at Zion National Park and that the FOIA officer did not believe that their request was so limited as evidenced by his taking a ten-day extension due to the variety of document sources…”

Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 939 F. Supp. 8 (D.D.C. 1996). “See 43 C.F.R. 2.15(d). Plaintiff argues, however, that the confidentiality provision of § 870.”

— 43 C.F.R. § 2.15(d) — 1 case

Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 939 F. Supp. 8 (D.D.C. 1996). “See 43 C.F.R. 2.15(d). Plaintiff argues, however, that the confidentiality provision of § 870.”

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.