This document is a letter appealing a Freedom of Information Act request response from the Council on Environmental Quality. The letter requests (1) a listing and description of documents withheld under exemption 5 to evaluate whether the exemption properly applies, and (2) confirmation that the agency's search was complete in locating relevant communications between employees and non-federal groups opposing carbon dioxide regulations. The letter asks CEQ to grant the appeal and complete processing within 20 days.

1. T-3 .2 004
05B/04<2014 03:17 FAX
PMaI8a22 05:06 Fram:
Tog
NRDC DH~mB
EkMfl BEST
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE C:OUNCIL
A 13, 2001 -
Fireedom of Information Officer
Council on EnvironmentalV Quality
Executive office of the Presideont,
Washington, DC 20003
01P e tre aCdoiead CaePooo
Re:. A Al2
Dear Wr. Boling:
Freedom of
This is an appeal of the agency' response to the abOve-referncflC
6 ).
b&nnoration Act request- pursuant to 5 U.5.0 552(aX(
agency records relating
On April 27,2001, NP-DC fl a FOIA request seekbig on behalf of CSQ on July 26,
to carbon dioxide and the Kyoto troft ci. You -responded
20,by disclosing 26 fIlt ofvso e documnents. Your letter also said that the
ldn35 ohrfiesou ht you described as "pre-decisional
documents
ageny1wa wihh s 552(b)(5).'1 Your letter
cwzuictihoflds (totshe29 pages) pursuant to
agncywa
5 U.S.c.
denied our rcquest for suflicicat itoratlion.to describe the withhold doumnents.
fees.
Finally, your letter gxafted our reque for a waiver of
We find it necessary to appeal Your decisono On two issues-
1. Failure to give a inc fldescription of the documnents withheld
whether each of the 3 5
tist, your response has given usno basis for evaluating in whole or in part, to
subject,
fit" and 26)2 pages that have been wi held is properly
exemption 5. Likewise, even if' one or more of those records is properly subject to
for evaluating whether release would
exemption 5, your response has give us no basisreasonable opporantymtot evaluate
still be in the public interest. In or4e to allow a of records can be released, or
whether exemption 5 applies. whethe factual portions interest, we request that CEO
whether the exemption should be wved in tlhe public
with reasonable specificity the
provide us a listing at the withheld 6 )cuments describing each one.
of
author, subject matter, captcn1s, lcng X d recdipnuts
NEW YORK * LOS AWO5ELU - SAN fRANCISCO
www,.nrdc~org IaoQ New York Avenue. NW. Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
TFL 202 289-686S FAx 202 2891060,

2. 2 003
__r05/0492014 03:17 FAX
T-flal P.03/04 Job-OSS
FE n~Z0:05Fram:
2
a listing at the Admninistrative
your letter states thp* we are 'no0 entitled to such a case, Judicial Watch v.
sts f prooessingE FOIAS reslests and as"e
and cites
Clinon880F.Spp.1, 0 (.DC 19 }.This case, however,
does not appear to
1
cited it. Rather, it says (at Pago1.,atuly
support the propositiaii fort .which you hve
some cases if an agency has provided
that a Vaughn index may nbt be requr in decision by means of an agerxcy
sufincient information to suppoirt its wit budingthe proposition tatan agnty satisfies its
for
off~ici~al' ff&vit Thlecase does notstd a
obligation by giving the FOTA requestor nothing more than a convlusory statement that
S and are being withheld.
given number of records fail under exemption
Your oler than to go to cairn in order to
position woulrl give us no hoi
to each record, whether any factual part of
evaluate whether exemaptiup 5 properly applies segregated and disclosed&Or
.a recor poelsajttthvxponhadbe
would be in thepulcitrt.W
whether disclosure of one or more w Ptrecorda have to be prepared if this matter goes
will
note that such a.descaiptio4 of the dou nents now would conserve the resources of
to litgation. Making this ibornatioa. vailable
for litigalion over this procedural step.
both CFlQ and NRDC by qbviating the aced
search
2. IncouipletfpUCss Of the agecnq's document
Second, we are cosicemed that agency's response to date may not be compleze
in th-At it may not include c~ertain roce encompassed by our April 27 request.
SpeiacllY th rcords; CEQ has di sddo not include any coanespondence or other
comulicat~ btwea
~ccods f Q niployces and non-federal employees that
carbon dioxide from
expessoppsiton o aticn b thiteadministration to regulate. surprising for two,
elecric owe th peiod
plats n XeMarch 13,2001 . This is
reasons:
and in10125t canunwiCalt'inn
First, there have bieen press re ofls of numerous the new admrinistrataio opposing
of
between industry Tepresenfalves and Reresentatives emissions from power plants and
legislation. or reguiationtd limit carbc n dioxide in
Protocol, particularly (batt not exclusively)
opposing fbrther participaton in the Iyoto which the President wrote a letter to
the period before March Ip, 2001, Uth date on to rcegulae C02 emissions from power
several senatOts reversing his camprn i prrdiSc
plants.
from nom-federal
Second, the rccords do Incu at least two commni~caltionls from power plants. 'In
employees expressing sup.port for rel ulating C0z emissions companies known the Clean
a group of power
addition, there axe several documexti from four powor plant pollutants. including
Energy Group describing their props sal to regulate
opposing C0)2
These circumstanqts make eabsence of correspondence;therefore muwt request
Imimtationls or the K~yoto TDrowcl q ito
odd, to SAY the least. We
as is necessary to ensutC tbat the agency
that CEC make such furt1{er search ofits records of minimlizing the burden on CEQ, we
has made available all suohrecords. In the interest

3. la 004
0O5/04/2014 03:17 FAX T-031 P.04/04 J~bfl38
A FEB-13-22 flIAT From:
3
tocus on records Of
Biro Prepared to narrow the jequest for a Iiter smeareto xrs
communications between E~ency emplo asadnnFoelepoesta -We request
to the KYcto Protocol.
opposition to 002 emisslops limitations or opposition of its mearch so as to assure that
that the agency describe in dotail t;r sco, c4Mmethod
all such records were -foundand Made arailable,'
description aOf
Thi isuehiter pdriieathe ned for a list giving a.mewitingft information,.
d, requested above. Without this
- each of the records ~tehait'dre WitheTi aasiwithheld mreord contain any
su that been
it s nt pssiles t 4eenu
or whi thcr
the Kyoto
non-Fera mpi, yees opposing C limitations or
00
cti orrepondence foruom art among the
Prooco, o meo~alzilg uecommunications. if such records
reord
inappropriate, since
witheld the fnvklngcxcptionS5 would appear to be
ocumnts
sucae nt popelysubecttothat oextmptioL
reord
Conclusion
and complete the
NIWC Tespectfxdll requests tlt CEQ prant this appeal lieth ics n
if you would
processing of this request wVithin 20 w iigdy. at (202) 2R9-24I9
aspect of this letter, please'do, not hesi tocall me
Sincerely,
Climnate Policy Specialist
1tr hcc we asptfully draw your attention to the first fhu pargraph
1~zirepet -
of the terr "record" for Purposes
of page 2 of our APril 2? -letter, whi ~ defines the scope
of this request.