Executive Order 13783 (CEQ)
| Tracking # |
FY2017-111 |
| Submitted | June 2, 2017 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Alexander Rony
To Whom It May Concern:
I. Description of Records Sought
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for agency plans submitted to the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) detailing how reviews will be conducted under Executive Order 13783.
II. Background Information
On March 28, 2017, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13783, "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth." Section 2(c) requires the head of each agency to submit a plan by May 12, 2017 that covers how their agency will carry out their review of energy-related actions. The CEQ Chair is one of several officials receiving these plans. A copy of the executive order is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/31/2017-06576/promoting-energy-independence-and-economic-growth.
III. Request for a Fee Waiver
I respectfully request that you waive all fees in connection with this request as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The Sierra Club is a national environmental nonprofit with no commercial interest in obtaining the requested information. Instead, our organization intends to analyze and disseminate the requested information free of charge so that the public can be better informed and meaningfully participate in protecting the nation's natural resources and public health.
The subject matter of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the government by disclosing how federal agencies are planning to review existing actions, and which ones are not affected by the executive order. Given the number of regulations related to energy, and the many issues that are related, there is a clear public interest in sharing this information.
The Sierra Club and its supporters have demonstrated interest and expertise in the subject area, as the organization's staff have made many recommendations regarding current regulations regarding energy production, conservation, pollution, and climate change. In addition, our supporters have filed millions of public comments on agency actions that are likely to be affected by this order.
IV. Media Requester Status
In addition to the public interest fee waiver, I ask to be properly categorized as a representative of the news media. The bulk of my professional duties at the Sierra Club entails planning and writing content about public policy, including composing mass communications to our followers, analyzing FOIA responses, and coordinating press outreach. Here are some examples that resulted from my work:
https://sierraclub.org/planet/2017/04/hiring-freeze-prevented-epa-filling-hundreds-jobs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/19/nearly-700-vacancies-at-cdc-because-of-trump-administration-hiring-freeze/
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4480/over-700000-people-tell-government-to-block-seed-mergers
The Sierra Club has the ability and intention to disseminate the information it receives through this request. The information may be shared through emails to an audience reaching into the millions, Facebook and Twitter posts reaching tens of thousands of followers, articles on our often-visited website, and analysis provided to the media.
V. Exempt Records
Should you decide to invoke a FOIA exemption with regard to any of the requested records, please include in your response letter sufficient information for an appeal, including:
1. Basic factual material about each withheld item, including the originator, date, length, general subject matter, and location of each item.
2. Explanations and justifications for denial, including the identification of the category within the governing statutory provision under which the document (or portion thereof) was withheld and a full explanation of how each exemption fits the withheld material.
If you determine that portions of a requested record are exempt from disclosure, please redact the exempt portions and provide the remainder of the record.
VI. Record Delivery
I would prefer the request be filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not. In the event that there are fees, please inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request.
Please produce the records on a rolling basis; at no point should the search for – or deliberation concerning – certain records delay the production of others that the agency has already retrieved and elected to produce.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Alexander Rony
Sierra Club
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 2, 2017. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: FN-CEQ-efoia
Dear Alexander,
-This FOIA request has been assigned a tracking number: FY2017-111.
-Your request for media status is approved.
-Your request for fee waiver is denied.
-At this time, we have completed the records search process and located potentially responsive records. The potentially responsive records are undergoing the review process.
Please let me know if you have any more questions concerning this FOIA request.
Very Respectfully,
Howard Sun
Attorney Advisor
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Office: (202) 456-3621
From: FN-CEQ-efoia
Dear Alexander,
During the review process, one of the issues that came up is your identity. This FOIA request is coming from MuckRock. MuckRock has no legal authority to act as your attorney, and does not verify users’ identities. Please send me an email from your sierraclub.org email account with your official signature block and confirming that you are the requestor for FY2017-111 so we can be assured that you are who you claim to be. Alternatively, you may send us a letter with your letterhead. After you have done so, we can still respond to this FOIA request via the MuckRock process. Thanks and happy to discuss.
Very Respectfully,
Howard Sun
Attorney Advisor
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Office: (202) 456-3621
From: FN-CEQ-efoia
Dear Alexander,
Attached please find a final response letter to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that you sent to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), case number FY2017-111. I am the FOIA Public Liaison and you may contact me with questions regarding your case.
Very Respectfully,
Howard Sun
Attorney Advisor
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Office: (202) 456-3621
From: Alexander Rony
To Whom It May Concern:
I am appealing the decision not to grant a fee waiver under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 40 C.F.R. § 1515.15(b) for my Freedom of Information Act request (FY2017-111). Records responsive to my request are in the general public's interest because they are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and are not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
According to the CEQ's FOIA regulations, the FOIA Officer may consider whether:
(1) The subject matter specifically concerns identifiable operations or activities of the
government;
(2) The information is already in the public domain;
(3) Disclosure of the information would contribute to the understanding of the public-at-large as
opposed to a narrow segment of the population;
(4) Disclosure of the information would significantly enhance the public's understanding of the
subject matter;
(5) Disclosure of the information would further a commercial interest of the requester; and
(6) The public's interest is greater than any commercial interest of the requester.
The request's subject matter pertains to government operations and activities: how agencies will review energy-related actions. To my knowledge, these plans has yet to have been released publicly.
The related executive order twice states that the issue at hand is "in the national interest," demonstrating that this if a topic that would contribute to the understanding of the public-at-large as opposed to a narrow segment. The Sierra Club will analyze the agency review plans -- which may be too technical for the average reader -- and publicize our findings in an easy-to-understand format, something that would significantly enhance the public's knowledge of the issue.
As a national environmental nonprofit that intends to provide analysis of the request records free of charge to the general public, the Sierra Club has no commercial interest, resolving points 5 and 6.
Thank you for considering this narrow appeal of the fee waiver decision. I trust that the rest of the FOIA request can proceed as normal. Mr. Howard Sun wrote today, July 26, asking me to verify my identity by sending an email directly from my work email address, which I have done. Please let me know if there is anything else needed on my part for this request.
Best regards,
Alexander Rony
Sierra Club
From: Alexander Rony
Re: FOIA Administrative Appeal -- Request Number FY2017-111
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to appeal the Council on Environmental Quality's ("CEQ") response to my June 2, 2017 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for documents provided to CEQ in response to Sec. 2(c) of Executive Order 13783. CEQ's July 26, 2017 response states that all eight responsive documents will be withheld pursuant to FOIA's Exemption 5. CEQ provides no information as to why these documents are "deliberative" or "predecisional," as required to be properly withheld. CEQ's decision to withhold all responsive documents is contrary to FOIA, and is wholly unsupported by the agency's denial letter.
CEQ did not claim any other FOIA exemptions applied and thus has waived any other claims of exemption. Under FOIA, the agency bears the burden of proof to show that documents are covered by this exemption. In other words, CEQ must provide some explanation for withholding of documents under Exemption 5 beyond a bare, conclusory assertion that the documents in question are predecisional and deliberative. Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d at 1146. See also SafeCard Serv. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1204 (D.C.Cir.1991). Here, CEQ cited the language of Exemption 5, but provided no details that would explain why each and every document meets the Exemption 5 standard – i.e., is both deliberative and predecisional.
To be predecisional, the document must be "prepared 'to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision, rather than to support a decision already made.'" Lurie v. Department of Army, 970 F. Supp. 19, 33 (D.D.C. 1997) (quoting Petroleum Information Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Further, "In order to qualify for the Exemption 5 privilege, a document must be...deliberative in the sense that it is actually ... related to the process by which policies are formulated." 2 Fed. Info. Discl. § 15:18 (quoting Jordan v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). While certain of the withheld documents may meet these criteria, it is impossible to know from CEQ's sparse response, and therefore CEQ has not met its burden to justify withholding documents.
The agency review plans should not reflect ongoing deliberations on agency policy. While draft reviews of individual regulations would likely be deliberative and predecisional, an agency's overall plan for how it will conduct those reviews would seem to represent the final policy of the agency in response to the executive order. For records that contain portions that are indeed exempt, FOIA provides for the use of redactions.
In Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (“Vaughn II”), the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that "the 'factual, investigative, and evaluative portions' of the documents 'reflect[ed] final objective analyses of agency performance under existing policy' and 'reveal whether the agencies' policies are being carried out,' rather than 'advisory opinions, position papers, policy recommendation, or other such intra-governmental documents concerned with the deliberative processes'" of the agency and were therefore not covered by Exemption 5. Id. at 1140. The court found that the affidavits relied on by the agency to justify invocation of Exemption 5 were "conclusory" and "fail[ed] to carry the Government's burden of proof...because at no place do they define, explain, or limit the 'deliberative process' which the Government seeks to protect." Id. at 1146. See also Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 511 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D. Conn. 2007); McGrady v. Mabus, 635 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2009).
I respectfully request that the denial of my request be reversed and remanded, and the full set of responsive documents be released.
Sincerely,
Alexander Rony
Sierra Club
P.S. I separately filed an appeal for the decision not to grant a fee waiver. While the fee waiver appeal was prepared before CEQ's July 27, 2017 response, it appears to have been processed after that date, in case that order of events was confusing.
From: Seale, Viktoria Z. EOP/CEQ
Dear Mr. Rony,
Attached please find a letter acknowledging receipt of your appeals in connection with FOIA Request No. FY2017-111.
As the FOIA Appeals Officer at CEQ, I will be reviewing and responding to your appeals. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at (202) 395-5750 or Viktoria.Z.Seale@ceq.eop.gov.
Sincerely,
Viktoria Z. Seale
Deputy General Counsel
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
From:
Dear Mr. Rony,
I am writing to provide an update on your FOIA appeals. At this time, the appeals are under review. This is a complex case with unusual circumstances involving intraagency and interagency coordination. As such, the anticipated response date for the appeals is on or before November 6, 2017.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email or by phone at (202) 395-5750.
Sincerely,
Viktoria
Viktoria Z. Seale
Deputy General Counsel
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
From: Alexander Rony
Dear Ms. Seale,
Is there an update on my FOIA appeal (Request No. FY2017-111, Appeal No. FY2017-192A, Appeal No. FY2017-193A)? On October 19 you gave me an anticipated response date of on or before November 6, 2017.
Best,
Alexander Rony
From:
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20503
November 16, 2017
This is a follow up to request number FY2017-111:
Dear Mr. Rony,
I am writing to provide an update on your FOIA appeals. At this time, the appeals are under review. This is a complex case with unusual circumstances involving intraagency and interagency coordination. As such, the anticipated response date for the appeals is on or before November 6, 2017.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email or by phone at (202) 395-5750.
Sincerely,
Viktoria
Viktoria Z. Seale
Deputy General Counsel
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com
Upload documents directly: https://www.muckrock.com/accounts/agency_login/council-on-environmental-quality-3207/executive-order-13783-ceq-38356/?email=Viktoria.Z.Seale%40ceq.eop.gov&uuid-login=7e6a9d45-b2d9-48ae-8a7b-75c7c17e0371#agency-reply
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 38356
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
---
On Sept. 22, 2017:
Dear Mr. Rony,
Attached please find a letter acknowledging receipt of your appeals in connection with FOIA Request No. FY2017-111.
As the FOIA Appeals Officer at CEQ, I will be reviewing and responding to your appeals. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at (202) 395-5750 or Viktoria.Z.Seale@ceq.eop.gov.
Sincerely,
Viktoria Z. Seale
Deputy General Counsel
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
---
On Sept. 7, 2017:
Re: FOIA Administrative Appeal -- Request Number FY2017-111
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to appeal the Council on Environmental Quality's ("CEQ") response to my June 2, 2017 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for documents provided to CEQ in response to Sec. 2(c) of Executive Order 13783. CEQ's July 26, 2017 response states that all eight responsive documents will be withheld pursuant to FOIA's Exemption 5. CEQ provides no information as to why these documents are "deliberative" or "predecisional," as required to be properly withheld. CEQ's decision to withhold all responsive documents is contrary to FOIA, and is wholly unsupported by the agency's denial letter.
CEQ did not claim any other FOIA exemptions applied and thus has waived any other claims of exemption. Under FOIA, the agency bears the burden of proof to show that documents are covered by this exemption. In other words, CEQ must provide some explanation for withholding of documents under Exemption 5 beyond a bare, conclusory assertion that the documents in question are predecisional and deliberative. Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d at 1146. See also SafeCard Serv. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1204 (D.C.Cir.1991). Here, CEQ cited the language of Exemption 5, but provided no details that would explain why each and every document meets the Exemption 5 standard – i.e., is both deliberative and predecisional.
To be predecisional, the document must be "prepared 'to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision, rather than to support a decision already made.'" Lurie v. Department of Army, 970 F. Supp. 19, 33 (D.D.C. 1997) (quoting Petroleum Information Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Further, "In order to qualify for the Exemption 5 privilege, a document must be...deliberative in the sense that it is actually ... related to the process by which policies are formulated." 2 Fed. Info. Discl. § 15:18 (quoting Jordan v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). While certain of the withheld documents may meet these criteria, it is impossible to know from CEQ's sparse response, and therefore CEQ has not met its burden to justify withholding documents.
The agency review plans should not reflect ongoing deliberations on agency policy. While draft reviews of individual regulations would likely be deliberative and predecisional, an agency's overall plan for how it will conduct those reviews would seem to represent the final policy of the agency in response to the executive order. For records that contain portions that are indeed exempt, FOIA provides for the use of redactions.
In Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (“Vaughn II”), the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that "the 'factual, investigative, and evaluative portions' of the documents 'reflect[ed] final objective analyses of agency performance under existing policy' and 'reveal whether the agencies' policies are being carried out,' rather than 'advisory opinions, position papers, policy recommendation, or other such intra-governmental documents concerned with the deliberative processes'" of the agency and were therefore not covered by Exemption 5. Id. at 1140. The court found that the affidavits relied on by the agency to justify invocation of Exemption 5 were "conclusory" and "fail[ed] to carry the Government's burden of proof...because at no place do they define, explain, or limit the 'deliberative process' which the Government seeks to protect." Id. at 1146. See also Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 511 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D. Conn. 2007); McGrady v. Mabus, 635 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2009).
I respectfully request that the denial of my request be reversed and remanded, and the full set of responsive documents be released.
Sincerely,
Alexander Rony
Sierra Club
P.S. I separately filed an appeal for the decision not to grant a fee waiver. While the fee waiver appeal was prepared before CEQ's July 27, 2017 response, it appears to have been processed after that date, in case that order of events was confusing.
---
On July 31, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am appealing the decision not to grant a fee waiver under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 40 C.F.R. § 1515.15(b) for my Freedom of Information Act request (FY2017-111). Records responsive to my request are in the general public's interest because they are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and are not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
According to the CEQ's FOIA regulations, the FOIA Officer may consider whether:
(1) The subject matter specifically concerns identifiable operations or activities of the
government;
(2) The information is already in the public domain;
(3) Disclosure of the information would contribute to the understanding of the public-at-large as
opposed to a narrow segment of the population;
(4) Disclosure of the information would significantly enhance the public's understanding of the
subject matter;
(5) Disclosure of the information would further a commercial interest of the requester; and
(6) The public's interest is greater than any commercial interest of the requester.
The request's subject matter pertains to government operations and activities: how agencies will review energy-related actions. To my knowledge, these plans has yet to have been released publicly.
The related executive order twice states that the issue at hand is "in the national interest," demonstrating that this if a topic that would contribute to the understanding of the public-at-large as opposed to a narrow segment. The Sierra Club will analyze the agency review plans -- which may be too technical for the average reader -- and publicize our findings in an easy-to-understand format, something that would significantly enhance the public's knowledge of the issue.
As a national environmental nonprofit that intends to provide analysis of the request records free of charge to the general public, the Sierra Club has no commercial interest, resolving points 5 and 6.
Thank you for considering this narrow appeal of the fee waiver decision. I trust that the rest of the FOIA request can proceed as normal. Mr. Howard Sun wrote today, July 26, asking me to verify my identity by sending an email directly from my work email address, which I have done. Please let me know if there is anything else needed on my part for this request.
Best regards,
Alexander Rony
Sierra Club
---
On July 27, 2017:
Dear Alexander,
Attached please find a final response letter to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that you sent to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), case number FY2017-111. I am the FOIA Public Liaison and you may contact me with questions regarding your case.
Very Respectfully,
Howard Sun
Attorney Advisor
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Office: (202) 456-3621
---
On July 26, 2017:
Dear Alexander,
During the review process, one of the issues that came up is your identity. This FOIA request is coming from MuckRock. MuckRock has no legal authority to act as your attorney, and does not verify users’ identities. Please send me an email from your sierraclub.org email account with your official signature block and confirming that you are the requestor for FY2017-111 so we can be assured that you are who you claim to be. Alternatively, you may send us a letter with your letterhead. After you have done so, we can still respond to this FOIA request via the MuckRock process. Thanks and happy to discuss.
Very Respectfully,
Howard Sun
Attorney Advisor
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Office: (202) 456-3621
---
On June 2, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I. Description of Records Sought
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for agency plans submitted to the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) detailing how reviews will be conducted under Executive Order 13783.
II. Background Information
On March 28, 2017, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13783, "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth." Section 2(c) requires the head of each agency to submit a plan by May 12, 2017 that covers how their agency will carry out their review of energy-related actions. The CEQ Chair is one of several officials receiving these plans. A copy of the executive order is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/31/2017-06576/promoting-energy-independence-and-economic-growth.
III. Request for a Fee Waiver
I respectfully request that you waive all fees in connection with this request as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The Sierra Club is a national environmental nonprofit with no commercial interest in obtaining the requested information. Instead, our organization intends to analyze and disseminate the requested information free of charge so that the public can be better informed and meaningfully participate in protecting the nation's natural resources and public health.
The subject matter of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the government by disclosing how federal agencies are planning to review existing actions, and which ones are not affected by the executive order. Given the number of regulations related to energy, and the many issues that are related, there is a clear public interest in sharing this information.
The Sierra Club and its supporters have demonstrated interest and expertise in the subject area, as the organization's staff have made many recommendations regarding current regulations regarding energy production, conservation, pollution, and climate change. In addition, our supporters have filed millions of public comments on agency actions that are likely to be affected by this order.
IV. Media Requester Status
In addition to the public interest fee waiver, I ask to be properly categorized as a representative of the news media. The bulk of my professional duties at the Sierra Club entails planning and writing content about public policy, including composing mass communications to our followers, analyzing FOIA responses, and coordinating press outreach. Here are some examples that resulted from my work:
https://sierraclub.org/planet/2017/04/hiring-freeze-prevented-epa-filling-hundreds-jobs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/19/nearly-700-vacancies-at-cdc-because-of-trump-administration-hiring-freeze/
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4480/over-700000-people-tell-government-to-block-seed-mergers
The Sierra Club has the ability and intention to disseminate the information it receives through this request. The information may be shared through emails to an audience reaching into the millions, Facebook and Twitter posts reaching tens of thousands of followers, articles on our often-visited website, and analysis provided to the media.
V. Exempt Records
Should you decide to invoke a FOIA exemption with regard to any of the requested records, please include in your response letter sufficient information for an appeal, including:
1. Basic factual material about each withheld item, including the originator, date, length, general subject matter, and location of each item.
2. Explanations and justifications for denial, including the identification of the category within the governing statutory provision under which the document (or portion thereof) was withheld and a full explanation of how each exemption fits the withheld material.
If you determine that portions of a requested record are exempt from disclosure, please redact the exempt portions and provide the remainder of the record.
VI. Record Delivery
I would prefer the request be filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not. In the event that there are fees, please inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request.
Please produce the records on a rolling basis; at no point should the search for – or deliberation concerning – certain records delay the production of others that the agency has already retrieved and elected to produce.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Alexander Rony
Sierra Club
Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com
Upload documents directly: https://www.muckrock.com/accounts/agency_login/council-on-environmental-quality-3207/executive-order-13783-ceq-38356/?email=Viktoria.Z.Seale%40ceq.eop.gov&uuid-login=7e6a9d45-b2d9-48ae-8a7b-75c7c17e0371#agency-reply
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 38356
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
From:
Dear Mr. Rony,
Attached please find the final response to your appeals, Appeal No. FY2017-192A and Appeal No. FY2017-193A, in connection with FOIA Request No. FY2017-111.
Should you have any questions, please contact me by email at Viktoria.Z.Seale@ceq.eop.gov or by phone at (202) 395-5750.
Sincerely,
Viktoria Z. Seale
FOIA Appeals Officer
Deputy General Counsel
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
Files
pages