Pirozzolo, Jack v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (SPR 20260528)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0528 Bruce Hopper, Esq. Litigation Manager Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Hopper: On February 12, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce responsive records and relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Office furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 14, 2026, Attorney Pirozzolo requested the following, including numerous Exhibits with his request: 1) All documents and communications related to the public records request submitted by Jack W. Pirozzolo on or around January 17, 2025 (the “Previous Request,” attached hereto as Exhibit A). 2) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to: a) All reports submitted by any Executive Office to MassDEP detailing passenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(7).2 b) All petitions submitted by any Executive Office to MassDEP requesting a modification of a passenger fleet emission limit pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(2), including, but not limited to, any explanatory materials submitted pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(3)–(5). c) All communications with any Executive Office related to MassDEP’s responses to petitions requesting modification of a passenger fleet emission limit issued by MassDEP pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(6)(c)(5), including, but not limited to, requests for additional information and responses thereto, approvals, and denials. d) All reports published by MassDEP concerning the metric tons of CO2 One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0528 Page 2 February 20, 2026 emissions remaining in the set-aside for all applicable calendar years, as required by 310 CMR § 60.06(c)(5)(b) (“If the petition is approved, the Department will calculate the metric tons of CO2 emissions remaining in the set-aside for the applicable calendar year and publish that figure on its website.”). e) All reports submitted by any Executive Office to MassDEP detailing nonpassenger vehicle emissions pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(8). f) The following records pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10): 1. All requests to Executive Offices for, and any record of, any “inspection” pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10); 2. All requests to Executive Offices for information and records “necessary to ascertain compliance with 310 CMR § 60.06,” and all responses thereto, pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10)(a); and 3. All “audits,” quantifications of emissions, “periodic reports,” and other records submitted to MassDEP to “determine compliance” with 310 CMR § 60.06, pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(10)(b). g) All citations and civil penalties issued by MassDEP for noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06, including pursuant to 310 CMR § 60.06(11). 3) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to any Executive Office’s compliance or noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06. 4) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to MassDEP’s compliance or noncompliance with 310 CMR § 60.06. 5) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications relating to a meeting held on February 3, 2025 between [named individuals], see Exhibit B, including, but not limited to, any agendas, minutes, and invitations. 6) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications relating to the Teams conversation regarding the Previous Request and Pirozzolo as reflected in Exhibit C, including, but not limited to, any related messages not depicted in the Exhibit C screenshot. 7) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to any communication that was both (i) related to 310 CMR § 60.06 and (ii) sent from any Executive Office to MassDEP employee . . . See Exhibit D (MassDEP email instructing Executive Offices to email 310 CMR § 60.06 documents to . . .). 8) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to any meeting between MassDEP, the Massachusetts

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0528 Page 3 February 20, 2026 Bay Transit Authority, and/or the Massachusetts Department of Transportation regarding 310 CMR § 60.06. See Exhibit E (email chain regarding scheduling such a meeting). 9) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications relating to both (i) the Previous Request and (ii) the Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (“EEA”), including, but not limited to, all communications with EEA regarding the Previous Request. See, e.g., Exhibit B. 10) To the extent not already produced in response to the Previous Request in your productions of April 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025, all documents and communications related to [a named individual]’s appointment as a Special Assistant Attorney General. 11) All documents related to enforcement policies, procedures, and protocols at MassDEP. 12) All documents related to any civil actions, adjudicative hearings, or other enforcement proceedings brought pursuant to 310 CMR § 7.72, 310 CMR § 7.73, 310 CMR § 7.74, and/or 310 CMR § 7.75. 13) All incoming and outgoing communications with any media outlet, reporter, or news service, including, but not limited to, Commonwealth Beacon News, related to 310 CMR § 60.06. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Department. See SPR26/0302 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2026). In my February 5th determination, I declined to opine on the Department’s petition seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records based on pending litigation related to the responsive records. It is my understanding that a reconsideration of my determination in SPR26/0302 is currently pending. Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests;

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0528 Page 4 February 20, 2026 (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of time to produce the responsive records and provides the following information in support of its request: As detailed in our good faith fee letter and petition in SPR26/0302, the Department estimates that responding to the request will require 394.35 hours of staff time to retrieve, review, redact and produce the responsive records. This estimate represents an actual and good faith representation and is necessary, reasonable, and is not designed to limit, deter, or prevent access to requested public records. In light of the estimated time required to respond to the request, and pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) and 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(e), the Department seeks an extension of time to respond to the request, after receipt of the required fee… An extension is warranted because the magnitude and complexity of the request will require extensive staff time and unduly burden the other responsibilities of this office, such that responding to the request within the statutory timeline is beyond the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency to produce the request without an extension. ... This 13-part request is one of three requests received contemporaneously from Mr. Pirozzolo and is the latest in a hail of public records requests made to the Department, and other Commonwealth entities, during the past year for commercial purposes and not for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. As indicated in our fee estimate in SPR26/0302, an employee working full time would require approximately 52 days just for segregation and redaction time alone, during which

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0528 Page 5 February 20, 2026 time they would be unavailable to perform their other pressing governmental duties. This request is “extensive and extremely burdensome.” Friedman v. Div. Admin. Law Appeals, supra, at 817; see also id. at 807. ... At a reasonable rate of 4 hours per week to work to respond to the request, the Department would require 98.5 weeks, to complete review. In light of these factors, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) and 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(f), we request that the Supervisor relieve the Department of its obligation to respond to the request; or, in the alternative, grant a reasonable extension of time, allowing the Department to produce records in batches every 30 business days until all records have been produced. See Friedman, supra, at 817 n.16 (“We do not rule out [] that a request could simply be too burdensome to meet the ‘reasonably describes’ requirement. Some Federal cases have so held.”); American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, Local 2782 v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“An agency need not honor a request that requires ‘an unreasonably burdensome search’”). If the above request is not granted, we seek an extension of 20 business days after receipt of the fee, with leave to file additional requests for extension of time. I find that in light of the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, and efforts undertaken by the Department in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Department is granted an extension of 20 business days. Request for Relief In its petition, the Department seeks relief from the obligation to provide records, stating, “[i]n light of these factors, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) and 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(f), we request that the Supervisor relieve the Department of its obligation to respond to the request.” The Office additionally alleges that the request is made for a commercial purpose, stating: This 13-part request is one of three requests received contemporaneously from Mr. Pirozzolo and is the latest in a hail of public records requests made to the Department, and other Commonwealth entities, during the past year for commercial purposes and not for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education.

Bruce Hopper, Esq. SPR26/0528 Page 6 February 20, 2026 G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find that the Department has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Additionally, the Department has not demonstrated that the requests are for a commercial purpose. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. However, in light of the above, I cannot grant the Department’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack W. Pirozzolo, Esq.