WASHINGTON — The Interior Department’s proposal to put restrictions on public records requests under the Freedom of Information Act is being challenged by a Democratic lawmaker, who says it would undermine government transparency.
Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, objected to the changes in a letter late Wednesday to acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.
Grijalva asked the agency, which oversees the country’s federal lands and natural resources, to hold public hearings and to extend a 30-day period for public comments on the proposed changes. An agency spokeswoman said the agency would respond to Grijalva’s letter “in a timely manner.”
Grijalva wrote that the proposed restrictions “would undermine government transparency and impose more burdens on Americans who are seeking information from federal agencies.”
The agency’s proposal would authorize the Interior Department to “not honor a request that requires an unreasonably burdensome search” and impose monthly limits on FOIA requests.
Reporters, watchdog groups, nonprofits and other members of the public use FOIA requests to gain information and documents on government actions and decision-making.
The proposed rule would add a clause that “the bureau may impose a monthly limit for processing records in response to your requests.” The agency said its change would allow for more equitable treatment of the various people and groups asking for records.
The Interior Department said it had seen an “exponential” increase in records requests and litigation over records requests since the Trump administration took office.
Interior Department spokeswoman Faith Vander Voort said today that agency officials “are very pleased with the robust 1,700 comments we received thus far.”
Vander Voort said the agency would extend its public-comment period by one day, to deal with a technical glitch in the process that started the clock ticking on the legally required public-comment period when the proposed rule was released Dec. 28.
Beyond that, Vander Voort said in an e-mail, “We are treating any extensions of the comment period the same as other regulations, ensuring the public has the sufficient time to provide their input.”