Source: https://www.pogo.org/letter/2011/05/pogo-joins-public-citizen-to-comment-on-proposed-foia-implementation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:00:09+00:00

Document:
Public Citizen and the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) submit the following comments on the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s proposed rule entitled Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, RIN 4030-AA02.
Therefore, POGO has a keen interest in protecting the public’s right to know and effective financial regulatory reform. POGO is a frequent FOIA requester and advocate.
agreement to pay up to $25; 4) the $.20/per page copying charge; 5) the definition of frequently requested records; 6) the circumstances under which requests will be expedited; 7) the date on which the time to appeal begins to run; and 8) the categories of fee requesters for which duplication costs will be waived if the Council does not respond within the applicable time limits.
I. FOIA Requesters Should Be Able to Submit Requests by E-mail.
Transparency 3 (Sept. 2010), available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/docs/ best-practices-guidance-sept-2010.pdf; see also id. (recognizing that “this widespread use of technology . . . simplif[ies] the request-making process”). The Council’s FOIA program should not, from its very first day, lag behind other agencies in use of current technology by requiring requests to be submitted in paper format.
II. The Requirements for a Request to Be Deemed “Complete” Are Overly Burdensome.
A. The Requirements Should Be Liberally Construed.
and bills can be sent. See Proposed § 1301.5(b)(4).
B. Requests that Fail to Specify a Fee Category or to State Whether the Requester Wants to Receive or Inspect the Records Should Not Be Considered Incomplete.
agencies do not generally require fee category information or specifications as to inspection versus copying to deem a request received, see, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 16.3 (setting forth DOJ requirements for making a FOIA request) and, therefore, even sophisticated FOIA requesters would not necessarily know to include this information in their requests.
C. Requests Should Not Have to State How the Records Released Will Be Used.
state how the requested records will be used. As stated above, if the agency has genuine questions about a requester’s fee category, it can contact the requester to clarify the issue.
D. The Agency Should Inform the Requester if It Deems a Request Not Received.
III. Requesters Should Not Have to State Whether They Want a Fee Waiver in the Request and Should Not Be Deemed to Have Agreed to Pay $25 if They Have Not.
their requests that responding will take more than the 2 hours and 100 pages to which noncommercial requesters are automatically entitled, or they might not understand the differences between fee categories and fee waivers—a topic that can cause confusion even among FOIA officers who deal with FOIA on a daily basis. FOIA requesters should not be deemed to have bypassed their chance at a fee waiver just because they did not know to request it up front.
Proposed § 1301.5(b)(7) also provides that a request that does not seek a fee waiver or reduction will constitute an agreement by the requester to pay up to $25. This limit, however, is above the amount many FOIA requests will cost. Some requesters whose fees would be less than $25 may not be able to afford $25 and may be chilled from filing a FOIA request out of fear that they will mistakenly end up liable for that amount. At the very least, the regulations should provide that if a FOIA requester informs the agency that it is not willing to incur any expense (for example, if the requester just wants the 2 free search hours and 100 free pages of duplication to which noncommercial requesters are entitled) or sets a fee limit lower than $25, those specifications will be respected.
IV. Duplication Costs Should Be Set at $.05 Per Page.
V. The Final Rule Should Clarify that Frequently Requested Records Do Not Have to be of Interest to the Public at Large.
VI. The Circumstances Under Which Requests Will Be Expedited Should Be Expanded.
The proposed rule only provides for expedited processing when there is a “compelling need” for the records. Proposed § 1301.7(c)(2)(ii). However, FOIA provides for expedited circumstances both when there is a “compelling need” (as defined by the statute, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)) and in other cases determined by the agency. Id. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i). The Council should identify other instances, in addition to when there is a compelling need, for allowing expedited processing. For example, other agencies also allow for expedited processing when requests involve “the loss of substantial due process rights” or a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d) (DOJ regulations on expedited processing); see also e.g., 5 C.F.R. § 1303.10(d) (OMB regulations on expedited processing). Particularly with a new agency, it is important that requesters be able to receive responses to their requests expeditiously when necessary for the public to hold the government accountable for its actions.
In addition, the final rule should remove the words “to and throughout the American general public” from the definition of an “urgency to inform.” Proposed § 1301.7(c)(2)(ii)(B). The term “urgency to inform” is in the definition of “compelling need” in FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). Because the definition applies across the government, individual agencies should not “elaborate upon that definition.” Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 307 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
VII. The Time to File an Administrative Appeal Should Run From the Day the FOIA Requester Receives the Initial Determination or Records.
accompanying the released records. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. § 1303.10(e) (OMB regulation beginning time to appeal from date of “receipt of a denial”). We have seen too many instances in which agencies write denial letters, but then do not send those letters until days or weeks after the date stamped on them, thereby eating sharply into the requester’s time to appeal.
VIII. Duplication Fees Should Be Waived for Representatives of the News Media if the Council Fails to Comply with Applicable Time Limits.
The proposed rule provides that if the Council fails to comply with applicable time limits and no unusual or exceptional circumstances apply, the Council shall not assess duplication fees if the requester is an educational or noncommercial scientific institution. See Proposed § 1301.12(e)(4). Under FOIA, however, duplication fees must also be waived under such circumstances for representatives of the news media. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii). Therefore, representatives of the news media should be added to Proposed § 1301.12(e)(4).
explain that duplication fees should be waived for representatives of the news media if the Council fails to comply with applicable time limits.

References: § 1301
 § 16
 § 1301

V. 
 § 1301
 § 552
 § 552
 § 16
 § 1303
 § 1301
 § 552
 v. 
 § 1303
 § 1301
 § 552
 § 1301