(a) The bureau may extend the basic time limit, if unusual circumstances exist, by notifying you in writing of:
(1) The unusual circumstances involved; and
(2) The date by which it expects to complete processing the request.
(b) If the processing time will extend beyond a total of 30 workdays, the bureau will:
(1) Give you an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or agree to an alternative time period for processing; and
(2) Make available the FOIA Public Liaison (see § 2.66 of this part) to assist in resolving any disputes between you and the bureau, and notify you of your right to seek dispute resolution from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
(c) If the bureau extends the time limit under this section and you do not receive a response in accordance with § 2.16(a) in that time period, you may consider the request denied and file an appeal in accordance with the procedures in § 2.59.
(d) Your refusal to reasonably modify the scope of a request or arrange an alternative time frame for processing a request after being given the opportunity to do so may be considered for litigation purposes as a factor when determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.
[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
Rsch. Air, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 2.19 (b). Based on that criteria, I must deny your request.”
Stewart v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 554 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2009).
“127-34; see 43 C.F.R. §§ 2.19 , 2.20. On November 6, 2003, the Utah State Office denied the request on the grounds that copies of some of the e-mails had been previously provided and that any remaining e-mails on the backup tapes would not make a significant contribution to…”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Zinke, 311 F. Supp. 3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“The Plaintiff's FOIA Request to the Office of the Secretary The DOI-OS acknowledged receipt of the plaintiff's August 2, 2016, request on *384 August 16, 2016, and advised that the DOI-OS FOIA Office was "taking a 10-workday extension under 43 C.F.R. § 2.19 " and would be…”
Citizens Progressive All. v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 241 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (D.N.M. 2002).
· cites it 2× “43 C.F.R. 2.19. The BIA “will waive fees (in whole or part) if disclosure of all or part of the information is in the public interest because its release — (1) Is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government; and…”
Bensman v. Nat'l Park Serv., 806 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2011).
“See 43 C.F.R. 2.19(a) (“[T]he bureau must make a determination on [a] fee waiver request within the statutory time limit.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 402 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2005).
“” 43 C.F.R. § 2.19 (b). To guide the agency in assessing the first part of this test, BLM regulations direct requesters to provide information as to how the records sought “concern the operations or activities of the Government,” 43 C.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Interior, 616 F. Supp. 889 (D.D.C. 1984).
· cites it 2× “-3(B)(3) is “not in accordance” with federal law; (4) declare that 43 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c)(1) is invalid; (5) declare that the requester will be presumptively entitled to a fee waiver if the request has been made by “a registered non-profit organization seeking information…”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Idaho 2019).
“The BLM also notified WWP that the request had been placed on the “complex” processing track, and that the BLM was taking a 30- workday extension under 43 C.F.R. § 2.19 (b). See id. WWP’s Kelly Fuller responded on March 27, 2018, thanking the BLM for its response.”
— 43 C.F.R. § 2.19(a) — 1 case
Bensman v. Nat'l Park Serv., 806 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2011).
“See 43 C.F.R. 2.19(a) (“[T]he bureau must make a determination on [a] fee waiver request within the statutory time limit.”
— 43 C.F.R. § 2.19(c)(1) — 1 case
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Interior, 616 F. Supp. 889 (D.D.C. 1984).
“-3(B)(3) is “not in accordance” with federal law; (4) declare that 43 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c)(1) is invalid; (5) declare that the requester will be presumptively entitled to a fee waiver if the request has been made by “a registered non-profit organization seeking information…”
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.