[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47-60]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32585]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 512

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0130]
RIN 2127-AL62

Confidential Business Information

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to modify the existing procedures for the
submission and processing of requests for confidential treatment. NHTSA
is proposing that it will defer acting on requests for confidential
treatment until it receives a FOIA request for the information, if the
Agency decides that making a determination of confidentiality is
necessary or if making a determination is in the public interest. In
general, unless and until a determination is made, the information for
which confidential treatment is requested will not be disclosed.
    To ensure that requests for confidential treatment will provide an
adequate basis for deferred determinations, this notice also proposes
that submitters affirmatively specify whether the materials for which
confidential treatment is sought were voluntarily submitted and provide
an adequate basis for their claim of voluntariness. The proposal also
contains provisions addressing agency disposition of inadequate or
incomplete requests to ensure that submitters comply with the
requirements when making requests for confidential treatment.
Additionally, to facilitate communication with those making requests
for confidential treatment, this notice proposes that an electronic
mail address be provided with all requests.
    NHTSA is also proposing to amend the regulation to provide
submitters of confidential information with the option of submitting
their requests for confidential treatment and the materials
accompanying these requests electronically.

DATES: Comments on the proposal are due March 4, 2016. In compliance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA

is also seeking comment on amendments to an information collection. See
the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and
Notices below. Please submit all comments relating to the information
collection requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
to OMB are most useful if submitted within 30 days of publication. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document for DOT's
Privacy Act Statement regarding documents submitted to the Agency's
dockets.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments regarding the proposed information collection should be
submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding methods and a copy
should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Otto Matheke, Office of Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Thomas
Healy, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202)
366-3820. The mailing address for both these officials is 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. NHTSA's Confidentiality Practices and Regulations
    B. Other NHTSA Statutes and Regulations and Confidential
Materials
    C. Federal Government Confidentiality Determination Practices
    D. Volume and Scope of Confidentiality Requests
    E. Receipt of Confidentiality Requests
III. Proposed Rule
    A. Time of Determination
    B. Request Requirements
    C. Consequences for Noncompliance
    D. Manner of Submission
    E. Other Changes in the NPRM
    F. Class Determination for Exemptions for Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard
IV. Public Participation
V. Privacy Act Statement
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    This notice proposes to amend NHTSA's regulations governing
requests for confidential treatment (49 CFR part 512) to allow the
Agency to defer making determinations on requests for confidential
treatment until a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) or if the Agency decides that making a determination is
necessary or is in the public interest so that NHTSA can more
efficiently manage the increasing number of requests for confidential
treatment. Generally, unless and until a determination is made, the
information for which confidential treatment is requested will be kept
confidential.
    NHTSA is also proposing to amend part 512 to provide requestors
with the option of submitting their requests for confidential treatment
and the materials accompanying these requests electronically in an
effort to more efficiently manage requests for confidential treatment
received by the agency.
    The number of requests for confidential treatment received by NHTSA
has increased significantly since NHTSA first promulgated its
confidentiality regulations in 1981. At that time the ``Big Three''
domestic automobile manufacturers still dominated the U.S. market. The
U.S. automobile market has since become more diverse because of new
entries from Asia, a significant decline in the market share controlled
by the ``Big Three'' and the corresponding expansion of market share by
other companies, including ``foreign'' manufacturers, many of whom now
have U.S. production facilities. Not surprisingly, as the market share
of these companies increased, their interactions with the agency have
increased as well. New agency programs, such as the New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP), have further increased the flow of data into NHTSA.
More recently, the digitization of information, the widespread adoption
of email, and the relative ease of storing, organizing and maintaining
electronic information, have often expanded the volume of data
encompassed by requests for confidential treatment. By proposing to
accept requests for confidential treatment electronically and to limit
agency confidentiality determinations to instances where the
confidential materials involved are the subject of a FOIA request, or
where the Agency finds that a determination is necessary or is in the
public interest, the Agency will be able to more efficiently manage the
increasing number and size of requests for confidential treatment.
    Requests for confidential treatment would be reviewed for
completeness and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements
and, if necessary, denied. Ordinarily, complete and compliant requests
would be substantively reviewed when and if a FOIA request seeking the
information is received. However, to ensure that the scope of requests
for confidential treatment is consistent with applicable law, the
agency is also proposing that it may also make confidentiality
determinations on its own initiative, even when it has not made a
finding that a determination is necessary.
    To ensure that persons requesting confidential treatment provide
the agency with all the information that may be required to make
deferred determinations of confidentiality, this notice also proposes
that confidentiality requests must state whether the information at
issue was voluntarily submitted or submitted in response to a
compulsory process. In either case, this notice proposes that requests
for confidential treatment contain information about the circumstances
of the NHTSA inquiry resulting in the submission of the materials
claimed as confidential. Additionally, to facilitate communication with
those seeking confidential treatment, this notice proposes that
requests for confidential treatment contain the electronic mail address
of the person designated as the intended recipient of any NHTSA
determination of confidentiality.

II. Background

A. NHTSA's Confidentiality Practices and Regulations

    The Agency's regulations governing requests for confidential
treatment are found in 49 CFR part 512. Part 512 directs that
confidential materials and requests for confidential treatment must be
submitted to NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel. 49 CFR 512.7. Currently,
requests must be in writing and may not be submitted electronically.
Id. Once a request is submitted, the information at stake remains
confidential until NHTSA makes its determination. 49 CFR 512.20.
Determinations must be made by the Chief Counsel's office within a
reasonable time. 49 CFR 512.17(b). However, if the information at issue
in a request is also the subject of a FOIA request, part 512 states
that NHTSA generally must determine whether to grant the
confidentiality request in 20 days. 49 CFR 512.17(a). This 20 day limit
may be extended by the Chief Counsel for ``good cause.'' Id. If NHTSA
denies a request, the submitter has 20 working days (from receipt) to
request reconsideration of the denial. 49 CFR 512.19. If a request for
confidential treatment is granted, it may be modified by the Chief
Counsel due to newly discovered or changed facts, a change in the
applicable law, a change in a class determination, the passage of time,
or a finding that a prior determination is erroneous. 49 CFR 512.22.
    First promulgated in 1981, part 512 established that NHTSA would
make confidentiality determinations within 30 days for certain classes
of information. 46 FR 2049 (January 8, 1981). These classes included:
(1) Information relating to a rulemaking proceeding with an established
public docket, (2) information relating to a petition proceeding with
an established public docket, (3) information relating to a defect
proceeding, (4) information relating to an enforcement proceeding
involving alleged violations or a regulation or standard, or (5)
information provided pursuant to a NHTSA reporting requirement. See
e.g. 49 CFR 512.5(b) (1981). In all other instances, the 1981 final
rule established that NHTSA would defer making a confidentiality
determination unless a FOIA request was made for information the
submitter claimed to be confidential. 49 CFR 512.5(d)(1981). If a FOIA
request was made, the 1981 final rule specified that NHTSA would
determine the confidential status of materials covered by the request
within 10 days of the request unless the information fell within the
five categories described above. Id.
    The Agency noted that many commenters suggested that the issuance
of confidentiality determinations in 30 days or less was inconsistent
with the practices of other Federal agencies and would be unduly
burdensome for the Agency. 46 FR. at 2050. NHTSA also observed that
some Federal agencies had adopted a policy of immediate determination
and that making immediate determinations would benefit both submitters
and the public. Id. The Agency stated that making immediate
determinations would make it easier for NHTSA to segregate and control
confidential information and that the public would benefit by having
access to information that was not be presumed to be confidential
because no determination over its status had been made. Id. NHTSA also
explained that concerns over overloading the Agency with unnecessary
work were ``unfounded.'' The information that would be subject to
immediate determinations would be limited to materials that generated
by investigations, required regulatory reports and rulemaking actions.
For these categories of information, the Agency concluded that non-
confidential information would customarily be made public. Id.
Accordingly, the best course for NHTSA would be to make immediate
determinations for the 5 named classes of information. Id.
    Responding to a petition for reconsideration filed by the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (MVMA), NHTSA modified the 1981
final rule in a notice published on June 7, 1982. 47 FR 24587 (June 7,
1982). The Agency observed that the crux of the MVMA petition, as well
as the comments generated during the rulemaking process, was that
making immediate determinations of confidentiality was inconsistent
with other government agency practices and would be overly burdensome
on both submitters and NHTSA. Id. at 24588. After reviewing its use of
confidential information, the Agency determined that most of these
materials originated in defects investigations and standards
enforcement proceedings. Id. Mindful that 49 CFR 554.9 provides that
communications submitted by a manufacturer which are the subject of an
investigation will be made public during that investigation, NHTSA
concluded that it may withhold information claimed to be confidential
pending a final determination of confidentiality if that request for
confidential treatment appeared to have a reasonable chance of success.
Id. NHTSA then stated that it would be ``. . . unnecessary or
inappropriate . . .'' to immediately determine the confidentiality of
defect and noncompliance information when it is received. Accordingly,
the Agency concluded that the immediate determination process
previously established for five classes of information no longer fit
NHTSA's needs. Therefore, NHTSA amended section 512.6 of part 512 to
state that the Agency would make confidentiality determinations at its
own initiative or when it received a FOIA request for the information
claimed to be confidential. Id.
    The 1982 response to the MVMA petition for reconsideration
established that NHTSA would make confidentiality determinations at one
of two junctures--when the Agency decided that it would do so or when
NHTSA received a FOIA request for the information at issue. However,
NHTSA promulgated a number of amendments to part 512 in 1989. See 54 FR
48892 (November 28, 1989). Among other things, the 1989 amendments
eliminated the prior reference to the five classes of data and simply
stated that any confidentiality determinations would be made within a
``reasonable time'' unless a FOIA request for the information had been
made. Id. at 48897. If a FOIA request for the data had been made, the
1989 amendments retained the requirement that a determination must be
made within 10 days of the FOIA request. Id.
    Beyond stating that the amendment would ensure efficient processing
and proper identification of business information received by NHTSA,
neither the NPRM (54 FR 28696 (July 7, 1989)) nor the preamble to the
final rule (54 FR 48892 (November 28, 1989)) explained the rationale
for adopting this ``reasonable time'' standard. NHTSA also did not
offer any guidance on what time period would constitute a ``reasonable
time.''
    NHTSA subsequently promulgated amendments to part 512 in July 2003,
(68 FR 44209, (July 28, 2003)), October 2007 (72 FR 59434 (October 19,
2007)), and July 2009 (74 FR 37878 (July 29, 2009)). These amendments
established class determinations for data submitted pursuant to the
early warning reporting (EWR) requirements authorized by the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act, Public Law 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800, the ``Cash for
Clunkers'' program authorized by the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and
Save Act of 2009 (the CARS Act) (Pub. L. 111-32) and established
procedures for submitting and marking electronic

documents and information. The ``reasonable time'' standard for making
confidentiality determinations established by the 1989 amendments to
part 512 was not addressed or modified by the 2003, 2007, and 2009
final rules.

B. Other NHTSA Statutes and Regulations and Confidential Materials

    Any proposal examining potential modifications to NHTSA's
regulations governing the confidentiality of information submitted to
the Agency must be consistent with statutory provisions directing the
disposition of these materials. Because NHTSA is proposing to defer
acting on requests for confidential treatment until a FOIA request is
made, a particular concern is whether statues governing NHTSA's
activities require disclosure of confidential information in the
absence of a FOIA request.
    When originally enacted in 1966, the Safety Act contained
provisions directly addressing certain categories of confidential
information submitted to NHTSA. The provision then codified at 15
U.S.C. 1402 imposed a duty on motor vehicle manufacturers to notify
vehicle owners and NHTSA if the manufacturer had determined that a
safety related defect existed in one of its products. Section 1402(d)
required that these manufacturers provide NHTSA with all communications
related to the defect that were sent to dealers and vehicle owners.
This section further commanded that the Secretary ``. . . shall
disclose so much of the information contained in such notice . . .'' or
other information obtained from a manufacturer in relation to a failure
to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that ``. . . will
assist in carrying out the purposes of this Chapter . . .''.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The purpose of the Safety Act is ``to reduce traffic
accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic
accidents.'' 49 U.S.C. 30101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authority to release information from defect-related
manufacturer communications to dealers and customers was not, and is
not, unlimited. 15 U.S.C. 1402(d) further stated that the Secretary ``.
. . shall not disclose any information which contains or relates to a
trade secret or other matter referred to in [the Trade Secrets Act (18
U.S.C. 1905)]'' unless such disclosure ``is necessary to carry out the
purposes'' of the Safety Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed below, the Trade Secrets Act is considered to
be co-extensive with FOIA exemption 4. See CNA Financial Corp. v.
Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress amended the Safety Act in 1974 and, among other things,
expanded the reporting requirements originally found in section 1402 by
adding part B ``Discovery, Notification and Remedy of Motor Vehicle
Defects.'' See Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974,
Public Law 93-492. The new reporting requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1418
commanded manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment
to furnish the Secretary with copies of all defect or non-compliance
related notices and other communications given by the manufacturer to
dealers and consumers (15 U.S.C. 1418(a)(1)). Section 1418(a)(2)(A)
directed the Secretary to disclose ``. . . so much of any information
which is obtained under this Act . . .'' relating to safety related
defect or a non-compliance determined to exist by the manufacturer or
NHTSA ``. . . as he determines will assist in carrying out the purposes
of this part . . .''. Again, the authority to disclose safety-related
defect or non-compliance related information was limited. The amendment
further specified that information subject to the Trade Secrets Act
shall not be disclosed unless the Secretary determines such disclosure
is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
1418(a)(2)(B)). Additionally, section 1418(a)(2)(C) stated that the
foregoing disclosure requirements ``. . . shall be in addition to, and
not in lieu of . . .'' the requirements of the Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The foregoing sections were redesignated as 49
U.S.C. 30167(a) and (b) when the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., was codified (without substantive
change) as 49 U.S.C. chapter 301--Motor Vehicle Safety in 1994, Public
Law 103-272.
    The 1974 amendments also replaced the reporting requirements in 15
U.S.C. 1402 with specific provisions addressing the disclosure of cost
information in the event a manufacturer opposes an action of the
Secretary on the basis of increased cost. 15 U.S.C. 1402(a) directed
that manufacturers submit such cost information for evaluation by the
Secretary. 15 U.S.C. 1402(b)(1) and (b)(2) specified that such cost
information, and the Secretary's evaluation of the cost data, shall be
made available to the public unless the submitter satisfies the
Secretary that the information contains a ``trade secret or other
confidential matter.'' In that event, disclosure shall only be made in
a manner preserving the confidentiality of the information (15 U.S.C.
1402(b)(1) and (2)). The provisions of section 1402 are now found in 49
U.S.C. 30167(c) as a result of the 1994 codification (without
substantive change) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., as 49 U.S.C. chapter 301--Motor Vehicle
Safety, Public Law 103-272.
    Other statutory provisions relating to various programs
administered by NHTSA are also relevant to agency processing of
confidential information. Section 32303(c) of chapter 323 (49 U.S.C.
32301 et. seq.) forbids the disclosure of personally identifying
information collected from a vehicle insurer without the consent of
that person when NHTSA has obtained crash or injury information from an
insurance company. NHTSA is authorized to collect information pursuant
to administration of the odometer fraud provisions of chapter 327 (see
e.g. 49 U.S.C. 32706) but is forbidden by Section 32708 of that chapter
from publicly disclosing information subject to the Trade Secrets Act
(18 U.S.C. 1905). Similarly, NHTSA is empowered to collect information
under the vehicle anti-theft provisions of chapter 331 (49 U.S.C. 33101
et. seq.) but Section 33116 of chapter 331 directs that the Agency may
not publicly disclose any of this information that is subject to the
Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905).
    The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) provisions of chapter 329
(49 U.S.C. 32901 et. seq.) direct that certain information be released,
but also restricts information that NHTSA may release to the public.
Section 32910(c) provides that NHTSA shall disclose certain information
obtained under this chapter under section 552 of title 5. However, this
command to release fuel economy information under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) is limited by subsequent language
stating that NHTSA ``. . . may withhold information under section
552(b)(4) of title 5 only if the Secretary or Administrator decides
that disclosure of the information would cause significant competitive
damage.'' Section 32910(c) further provides that fuel economy
measurements and calculations performed by the Environment Protection
Agency under section 32904(c) ``shall be disclosed under section 552 of
title 5 without regard to section 552(b).'' Under the foregoing
provisions, NHTSA has a general duty to make fuel economy information
available under FOIA unless the Agency finds that release of the
information would cause significant competitive harm. If the
information at issue is fuel economy measurement and calculation data
generated under section 32904(c) by the Environment Protection Agency
(EPA), NHTSA must make these materials available regardless of whether
the information is exempt from

disclosure under the FOIA exceptions found 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
    With the exception of the EPA fuel economy calculations described
in 49 U.S.C. 32904(c), which NHTSA is required to release, NHTSA's
release of information obtained in furtherance of its varied missions
is tempered by the requirement that the Agency not disclose information
whose release would cause competitive harm or is subject to the Trade
Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). We note that is has long been established
that the Trade Secrets Act is considered to be co-extensive with FOIA
exemption 4. See CNA Financial Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1151
(D.C. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, other than EPA fuel economy calculation
data, the statutes governing various agency programs do not require
NHTSA to release information it has received if that information is
confidential under FOIA exemption 4.
    The Agency is also not required to release confidential information
under its own regulations. NHTSA promulgated regulations codifying the
procedures employed in defect and non-compliance investigations in
1980. See 45 FR 10796 (February 19, 1980). The 1980 final rule created
49 CFR part 554. While Section 554.9 directs that files from closed or
suspended investigations, including communications between the Agency
and the manufacturer of the product in question, are to be made be
publicly available, it does not require the disclosure of confidential
information. Rather, information made public under section 554.9 may
include confidential material if NHTSA determines such disclosure to be
necessary to the investigation.

C. Federal Government Confidentiality Determination Practices

    NHTSA has traditionally followed a practice of responding to all
requests for confidential treatment as soon as is practicable after
those requests have been filed. This practice, as well as the Agency's
requirement that submitters provide formal requests for confidential
treatment when submitting information to NHTSA, is rather unique. Most
Federal agencies have adopted different approaches. Some agencies
normally make determinations regarding the confidentiality of
information only when they receive a FOIA request for the information.
See e.g. 17 CFR 145.9(d)(10) (Commodity Futures Trading Commission).
Other agencies adopt the position that determinations of
confidentiality will be made either at the Agency's discretion or when
a FOIA request is made. See 12 CFR 261.16(a) (Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve), 18 CFR 388.112 (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission), and 40 CFR 2.204 (Environmental Protection Agency). Within
the Department of Transportation, NHTSA is the only agency that has
followed a practice of making immediate determinations of
confidentiality in response to all requests that it received. Given our
experience, and under our considered judgment, we have tentatively
concluded that the better practice, like that of other agencies, is to
make determinations only upon receipt of a FOIA request or if a
determination is otherwise necessary.

D. Volume and Scope of Confidentiality Requests

    The task of making substantive determinations on requests for
confidential treatment has increased in complexity in recent years.
Changes in the automotive industry, new agency programs and changes to
existing agency programs have increased the volume of information being
submitted to NHTSA. Furthermore, materials for which confidential
treatment is sought more often include, images, databases, pictures,
videos and other digital materials which has increased the amount of
data being submitted to NHTSA. NHTSA is now receiving almost twice the
number of requests for confidential treatment and requests for
reconsideration than it did ten years ago. NHTSA receives between
approximately 300 to 500 requests for confidential treatment in a given
year.
    The widespread use of electronic documents, data systems and
information management and storage systems have enabled manufacturers
to create and store more information and, when compelled by an agency
request requiring them to produce it, to submit more data to NHTSA.
    A 2003 study performed by the University of California at Berkeley
concluded that the growth in electronic storage needs for data had
doubled between 2000 and 2003. See http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/. In 2012, it was believed that
the amount of electronic data maintained by businesses and other large
entities was doubling every 18 months. See http://www.cio.com/slideshow/detail/72421?source=ctwartcio#slide1. In almost all contexts,
but particularly in the case of defect and non-compliance
investigations, the submission of data to NHTSA in an electronic format
via CD-ROM, thumb drives, hard drives or other media is now an
established practice. The size of these submissions is increasing over
time as more emails, photographs, videos, spreadsheets, PowerPoint
presentations and other digital documents are being generated by
manufacturers. Further, the relative ease of storing and managing
digital documents makes it possible to retain multiple iterations and
drafts of similar documents and data. While NHTSA's recent series of
investigations into unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles are not
representative of typical agency defect investigations, it is
noteworthy to observe that Toyota submitted over 42 gigabytes of data
to the Agency in response to NHTSA requests. More recently, two
investigations, the General Motors ignition switch investigation (TQ14-
001) and the Takata air bag rupture investigation (EA15-001), resulted
in more than a terabyte of data being provided to the Agency.
    As more data is produced by manufacturers and subsequently given to
NHTSA in the course of investigations, the workload imposed by
substantive confidentiality reviews of the data has grown and continues
to grow. In today's world, a gigabyte of data is not considered to be a
significant amount. However, if that gigabyte of data consists of
documents without embedded photographs or videos, the printed versions
of the documents would fill the bed of a pickup truck. See ``How Much
Information? Data Powers of Ten'' http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/datapowers.html. Applying this estimate
to the digital materials submitted during the Toyota unintended
acceleration investigations described above, one can conclude that
NHTSA received enough documents to fill at least 42 pickup trucks.
    Although the size and scope of the Toyota unintended acceleration,
the GM ignition switch, and Takata air bag rupture investigations were
unusually large, large amounts of data are being submitted in routine
defect matters. In one recent NHTSA investigation examining fuel pump
failures in certain Volkswagen vehicles, Volkswagen submitted
approximately 2.5 gigabytes of documents in response to formal agency
Information Requests (IRs) during this investigation. Using the rule of
thumb noted above, that one gigabyte of electronic documents would fill
a pickup truck if reproduced on paper, substantive review of this data
required that the Agency examine two and one-half truckloads of
documents.
    The explosive data growth resulting from the development and use of
digital materials has created new industries

and products for managing this information. Law firms and litigants
have had to adapt to these developments through the use of various
tools to organize and sift through the mountains of information now
being produced by business entities. A variety of software packages now
exist for these purposes. See http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/tech/ltrc/charts/litsupportchart_final.authcheckdam.pdf.
These products, although essential for litigating complex cases in
today's world, are not suitable for use as tools in substantively
reviewing submissions for confidentiality purposes.
    When materials are provided to NHTSA in response to a formal
investigation request or similar compulsory inquiry, the proper legal
standard for any grant of confidential treatment is whether release of
the information at issue would be likely to cause the submitter to
suffer substantial competitive harm or would impair the government's
ability to obtain similar information in the future. See National Parks
& Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Therefore, the central determination that must be made is not related
to a particular issue, set of individuals or specific events and
transactions. This central issue--would release of the data be likely
to cause substantial competitive harm--is general in nature when
compared to the specific inquiries involved in litigation. Moreover,
determining if competitive harm would be likely to flow from releasing
information is not tied to specific persons, particular transactions or
discrete events. For this reason, commercially available litigation
support software is not suitable for making confidentiality
determinations, and development of a dedicated software solution for
this purpose would certainly be difficult and expensive.

E. Receipt of Confidentiality Requests

    A claim for confidential treatment must be submitted to the Chief
Counsel at an address specified in the regulations. 49 CFR 512.7. NHTSA
is proposing to amend part 512 to provide submitters of confidential
information with the option of submitting their requests for
confidential treatment and the materials accompanying these requests
electronically, by email, through a secure portal or through a similar
secured site, rather than to an actual physical address used by the
post office. The Agency is currently working to develop a system that
would allow submission of materials electronically.
    The Agency notes that the many of the requests for confidential
treatment involve materials stored on electronic media in various file
formats. These include discs, thumb drives, and portable external hard
drives. The current regulation requires a complete copy of the
submission, a redacted version, and either a second complete copy of
the submission or those portions of the submission containing the
material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional
information the submitter deems important to the Chief Counsel's
consideration of the claim. 49 CFR 512.5. As discussed in a final rule,
68 FR 44209, 44212 (July 28, 2003), the Chief Counsel was to distribute
the complete copy and the public version of the material to the program
office for its use, and will use the additional marked copy or set of
material to evaluate the claim for confidential treatment. The
rationale for the foregoing system was to provide the program office
with the information necessary for program activity expeditiously and
ensure that the program office is aware of which material is claimed to
be confidential and which is not, and to provide the Chief Counsel with
the information needed to consider the claim for confidential
treatment. Id.
    The proposal to allow submission of materials electronically would
eliminate the requirement for the additional marked copy or set for
those submissions, as this information will be stored in an electronic
repository or other system that would permit the applicable NHTSA
program office as well as the Office of Chief Counsel to access it.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the proposal to allow electronic
submission will reduce inefficiencies.
    NHTSA also believes that the proposal to allow electronic
submissions could result in savings for requestors. Many requestors use
commercial carriers to send the confidential information to NHTSA's
physical address. If a requestor is permitted to submit the request and
information electronically, it would serve to eliminate those delivery
costs. Furthermore, requestors who submit electronically would not
incur the additional expense associated with producing discs, thumb
drives, and portable hard drives to NHTSA. Finally, those submitting
confidential materials electronically would not be required to submit
two copies of the confidential version of the information at issue
because a single copy would be sufficient to address the agency's
needs.
    Adopting an electronic submission process also has the potential to
improve transparency and facilitate public access to information that
is not claimed as confidential by submitters. Such ``public'' data, if
provided electronically, can be (after review by the Agency and
redaction, if necessary) quickly and easily transferred to repositories
that allow for public access. Adopting an electronic submission process
would also allow NHTSA to more efficiently manage requests for
confidential treatment as the agency will no longer have to use
resources to process and store incoming hard copies of these requests.

III. Proposed Rule

    NHTSA is proposing to amend part 512 to explicitly direct that
confidentiality determinations will be made only at certain times: When
the materials at issue are the subject of a FOIA request or, in the
absence of such a FOIA request, if NHTSA determines it is necessary
because it is required by statute, regulation or other requirement, or
otherwise necessary, it determines that it is in the public interest,
or to ensure that a person submitting requests for confidential
treatment comply with part 512 and is not making claims that are unduly
broad or not supported by applicable law. We believe that these
proposed changes will allow NHTSA to more efficiently manage requests
for confidential treatment and the materials with which these requests
are associated. These proposed changes will also more align NHTSA's
approach for handling requests for confidential treatment with those of
other operating administrations within DOT.
    It is the Agency's intent that it will ordinarily make substantive
determinations of confidentiality only when a FOIA request seeking the
information has been filed. Otherwise, NHTSA will make determinations
in response to requests for confidential treatment when, at the
Agency's discretion, a determination is either in the public interest
or is otherwise necessary. In most cases, the Agency's exercise of
discretion will result in no determination being issued unless and
until a FOIA request for the information has been filed with the
Agency. Although this proposal appears to not deviate from the existing
requirements of part 512, NHTSA has long followed a practice of
responding to every request for confidential treatment as soon as it is
practicable to do so. As noted above, NHTSA now believes it should not
continue to make determinations for each and every request for
confidential treatment it receives.
    Under the current regulations, information received by NHTSA, for

which a properly filed confidentiality request is submitted, will be
kept confidential until the Chief Counsel makes a determination
regarding its confidentiality. 49 CFR 512.20(a). Such information will
not be disclosed publicly, except in accordance with part 512. Id. The
Agency is not proposing any change to this regulation.
    Because the Agency is proposing to follow a policy, in the absence
of special circumstances, of making confidentiality determinations only
when a FOIA request is filed, this notice proposes additional
amendments aimed at ensuring that requests for confidential treatment
are sufficiently complete to allow making a determination in the
future, should the Agency act on the request. The Agency does intend to
perform an initial review of all requests for confidential treatment to
ensure completeness and compliance with the requirements of part 512 to
ensure that the request is complete so it can be processed at a later
date. This initial review will be limited to the sufficiency of
incoming requests. In the event that a request is found to be
insufficient, the agency is proposing to employ an abbreviated letter
to deny the request and notify the recipient of the reason(s) for the
denial. Furthermore, NHTSA is also proposing to amend part 512 to
explicitly provide that the Agency may make confidentiality
determinations in certain instances to ensure that manufacturers are
not making overly broad requests.

A. Time of Determination

    49 CFR 512.17 currently provides that NHTSA will make
confidentiality determinations at one of two junctures: Within 20
working days after a FOIA request is made for the information claimed
to be confidential or within a reasonable period of time, if not
requested under FOIA. Section 512.17(b), which governs when
determinations are made in the absence of a FOIA request, states:

    (b) When information claimed to be confidential is not requested
under the Freedom of Information Act, the determination of
confidentiality will be made within a reasonable period of time, at
the discretion of the Chief Counsel.

This provision, which was inserted into the newly created 512.17 in the
July 2003 final rule amending part 512 (68 FR 44209), is similar to
language that originally appeared as Section 512.6(d) in the 1989
amendments intended to simplify part 512:

    (d) For information not requested pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act, the determination of confidentiality is made within
a reasonable period of time at the discretion of the Chief Counsel.

54 FR 48892, 48897 (Nov. 28, 1989)
    As promulgated in 1989, section 512.6 provided that NHTSA would
place submitter-redacted or ``public'' versions of materials submitted
with a confidentiality request on public view (see 54 FR at 48897,
section 512.6(b)) and make a determination of confidential treatment
within 10 days after a FOIA request is filed for information claimed as
confidential (54 FR at 48897, section 512.6(c)). For information not
subject to a FOIA request, the determination would be made within a
``reasonable time'' as described in section 512.6(d).
    As noted above, section 512.6 established different timing
requirements for confidentiality determinations for different
categories of materials prior to the 1989 amendments. For materials
outside of five specific categories, section 512.6(d) declared that
confidentiality determinations would be made within 10 days of a FOIA
request seeking the information. 47 FR 24587, 24591-2 (June 7, 1982).
As set forth in section 512.6(b), confidentiality determinations for
five discrete categories of data would be made when required by the
FOIA, NHTSA statues or regulations or when NHTSA determined disclosure
was in the public interest. Id. at 24591. Accordingly, prior to the
1989 amendment stating that determinations would be made within a
``reasonable time,'' NHTSA's regulations provided that it would make
confidentiality determinations at its own initiative unless the
information at issue the subject of a FOIA request. Id. at 24591.
    The most identifiable constant in the evolution of NHTSA's approach
to the timing of confidentiality determinations is that determinations
must be made within a designated time period after a FOIA request.
Beyond this, the record does not provide much insight into how the
position taken in 1982 that NHTSA would make determinations at its own
initiative became transformed into a 1989 final rule stating
determinations would be made within a reasonable period of time at the
discretion of the Chief Counsel. While the adoption of the latter
phrase was characterized as not constituting a substantive change (54
FR 48894), the language employed appears to provide that the discretion
exercised by NHTSA's Chief Counsel was limited to when a determination
would be made and not, as the 1982 final rule provides, if a final
determination would be made.
    The Agency's recent practice of making determinations on all
requests for confidential treatment as soon as is practicable is at
odds with the position stated in the 1982 final rule. The current
language--determinations are made within a reasonable time at the Chief
Counsel's discretion--infers that determinations will be made in all
cases. If this was not intended, and an ambiguity exists, an
interpretation that the Chief Counsel has the discretion to not make
final confidentiality determinations is more consistent with the
existing record.
    NHTSA believes that the evolution of part 512 supports the
conclusion that the Agency is not required to act on all requests for
confidential treatment and is only compelled to do so by a FOIA
request, when it determines it is necessary, or in the public interest.
    NHTSA is therefore proposing to amend section 512.17 to explicitly
provide that it will make confidentiality determinations only under
certain conditions. One condition will be when NHTSA receives a FOIA
request seeking information that may be within the scope of a request
for confidential treatment. Other conditions under which NHTSA will
make a confidentiality determination will exist if the Chief Counsel,
at his discretion, determines that making a determination is necessary
or is in the public interest.
    As it did when issuing the 1982 final rule governing the timing of
confidentiality determinations, NHTSA tentatively concludes that
publicly releasing materials not claimed to be confidential is
consistent with the requirement found in 49 CFR part 554.9 that non-
confidential materials submitted by a manufacturer will be made
available to the public during the course of an investigation. See 47
FR 24587, 24588 (June 7, 1982). Furthermore, it is our tentative view
that permitting electronic submissions will facilitate a more
expeditious process in making the material not claimed to be
confidential publicly available. However, the Agency does note that the
disclosure of such material will not be instantaneous-- there will
necessarily be a delay in making the material publicly available, as
the Agency will need to review, and if necessary, redact certain
information contained in the submissions, such as names, addresses and
telephone numbers of consumers that must be removed in order to protect
the personal privacy of individuals.
    Deferring determinations on requests for confidential treatment
until NHTSA receives a FOIA request for the information, or decides
that making a determination is required by statute or regulation or is
in the public interest,

will allow the agency to more efficiently process requests falling into
these classes. By deferring determinations on requests for
confidentiality for materials failing into other categories, NHTSA can
focus its resources on reviewing those requests for which a FOIA
request has been filed or for which the agency has decided that a
confidentiality determination is otherwise necessary.

B. Request Requirements

    This notice also contains proposals to amend certain current
requirements for requests for confidential treatment. In recognition of
the increasing importance and use of electronic mail, NHTSA is
proposing to amend section 512.8(f), which presently requires those
requesting confidential treatment to provide the name, address and
telephone number of the person to whom a determination should be sent,
to require that those seeking confidential treatment also provide an
electronic mail address for the designated recipient of NHTSA's
determination of confidentiality. We are also proposing to amend
section 512.8(a), which presently requires identification of the
confidentiality standard applicable to the request, to more explicitly
direct that persons requesting confidential treatment specify why the
materials for which confidentiality is requested are being submitted to
NHTSA and whether the submission is required by statute, regulation or
other compulsory process. Among other things, the proposed amendment
would require the identification of the NHTSA official requesting the
information claimed as confidential, the date of the request, the
subject matter of the request and the form in which the request was
made. The proposal also amends section 512.8 to more explicitly require
that requesters specify the factual basis for any claim that materials
claimed as confidential are voluntarily submitted and, where
applicable, to specify which materials are voluntarily submitted and
which are not.
    The applicable legal standards for granting confidential treatment
differ significantly depending on whether the materials are voluntarily
submitted or in response to a legal requirement. See, Critical Mass
Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir.
1992) and National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765
(D.C. Cir. 1974). Under the test set forth in Critical Mass, financial
or commercial information provided to the government on a voluntary
basis is ``confidential'' for purposes of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) if it is the kind of information
that would customarily not be released to the public by the submitter.
975 F.2d at 879. For compulsory submissions, under National Parks,
information is confidential under Exemption 4 if its disclosure would
be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the submitter or to
impair the government's ability to collect the information in the
future. 498 F.2d at 770. Proper application of these standards
obviously has an impact on whether materials are granted confidential
treatment as well as the time and resources required for submitters to
prepare a request for confidential treatment and the resources needed
to review such a request.
    It is NHTSA's experience that persons submitting requests for
confidential treatment often resort to employment of a standard form
letter that does not properly designate or identify data voluntarily
submitted or submitted as a result of legal compulsion. These requests
generally contend, in a conclusory fashion, materials are entitled to
confidential treatment under both National Parks and Critical Mass. In
other instances, additional information may be provided by a submitter
voluntarily along with materials that were required. Submitters
providing conflated requests run the risk that their requests will not
be evaluated properly. From NHTSA's point of view, these requests may
also be more difficult to process. Our concern that the confidentiality
standards applicable to specific requests may not be correctly
identified, documented and supported is heightened by our proposal to
defer making confidentiality determinations. If the foregoing proposal
is adopted, most determinations, to the extent determinations are made,
will not be made until some period of time after an initial request is
filed. It is therefore important that requests for confidential
treatment provide an adequate record on which such deferred
determinations could be properly made.

C. Consequences for Noncompliance

    NHTSA is also proposing to amend section 512.13(a) to remove
language stating that improperly filed requests for confidential
treatment may not necessarily result in a waiver of confidential
treatment if the agency receives notice of the request or otherwise
becomes aware of the claim before the material at issue is disclosed to
the public.
    We first note that the existing language is somewhat superfluous.
Section 512.13(a) authorizes the Chief Counsel to make a determination
that failing to follow the submission requirements in section 512.4 may
waive claims for confidential treatment. Since NHTSA is not required to
make a waiver determination when requests are not filed or are
improperly filed, it may continue to exercise its discretion and not
find that a waiver has occurred for any number of reasons. As these may
include NHTSA's independent knowledge that the materials involved are
confidential or NHTSA's receiving notice that a proper claim for
confidential treatment will be asserted, the agency's tentative
conclusion is that that the existing language is not necessary.
    The agency is also concerned that retaining the existing language
is undesirable. As noted above, incomplete, improperly prepared and
untimely requests for confidential treatment create additional burdens
for NHTSA. We see no reason to maintain language that could encourage a
casual approach to submitting requests for confidential treatment,
particularly since we are also proposing to defer making
confidentiality determinations until receipt of a FOIA request or the
determination is necessary or in the public interest. When making
determinations is deferred, the passage of time necessarily compounds
the impact of errors in requests and increases the difficulties
inherent in resolving them. Accordingly, our proposal includes revising
section 512.13(a) to strike language implying that failure to file a
request for confidential treatment or filing one improperly will not
result in a waiver of confidentiality.

D. Manner of Submission

    NHTSA is proposing to amend part 512 to allow requests for
confidential treatment and the accompanying materials to be submitted
electronically. Currently, part 512 anticipates that materials will be
submitted to a physical address. 49 CFR 512.7. NHTSA believes that
providing the option for electronic submission will increase
efficiencies, reduce burdens for the agency and submitters and
facilitate more expeditious release of non-confidential information.

E. Other Changes in the NPRM

    NHTSA is also proposing to amend 49 CFR 512.4 to clarify how
requestors submitting requests for confidential treatment for materials
submitted in compliance with 49 CFR part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy
Reports, should submit their requests. Because requests for
confidential treatment are

submitted in compliance with 49 CFR part 537 are also required to
comply with the requirements of 49 CFR part 512, we are amending 49 CFR
512.4 to make this clarification. We also note that the amendments to
49 CFR part 512 in this NPRM are intended to be consistent with, and
not to conflict with, the amends to 49 CFR part 512 proposed in our
NPRM, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2, 80 FR 40138,
40732 (July 13, 2015). Depending on the timing of the final rule in
this rulemaking action, NHTSA may make additional revisions to the
final rule to effectuate the proposed revisions to 49 CFR part 512 in
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2, NPRM. NHTSA also requests
comment on whether it would be more efficient for persons submitting
request for confidential treatment to submit only those reports
specified in 49 CFR part 537 through the part 537 electronic portal and
to submit the certification in Appendix A the materials specified in 49
CFR 512.8 through the electronic submission method proposed in this
NPRM.

F. Class Determination for Vehicle Model Identifying Information
Provided in Petitions for Exemption From Parts Marking Requirements
Under the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

    NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the name of the passenger
motor vehicle make, model, line, and model year for which a
manufacturer is seeking an exemption from the theft prevention standard
under 49 CFR part 543 will be presumed to be confidential until such
time that the petition for exemption is granted or denied.
    The agency notes that vehicle manufacturers routinely seek
confidential treatment for this make, model, line and model year
information. We have previously stated, when making determinations on
requests for confidential treatment, that 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements related to the disposition of all 543
petitions. Under the foregoing section, the information published in
the Federal Register (whether the petition is granted or denied)
includes make, model, and model year of vehicle and a general
description of the proposed theft deterrent device. Because listing the
name of the passenger motor vehicle make, model, line, and model year
that is the subject of the petition is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of models exempt from the Theft Prevention
Standard, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that release of the
information is necessary to achieve the objectives of part 543.
    We have also tentatively concluded that release of this information
at the time NHTSA issues a determination in response to a petition
filed under part 543 is not likely to result in substantial competitive
harm to the petitioner. This tentative conclusion is based on two
factors. The first is that manufacturers have a significant degree of
latitude in when exemption petitions are filed and can therefore
control when model information is released by NHTSA. The second is that
now model name, line, model year and make information routinely enters
the public domain, either by accident or design, before NHTSA grants or
denies parts marking exemption petitions.
    Section 543.5(b)(4) requires that petitions for exemption must be
filed no later than eight months prior to start of production for the
model line for which the exemption is sought. In turn, NHTSA is
required under 49 CFR 543.7(c) to make a determination on the petition
not later than 120 days after the petition is filed. Provided that a
petition for exemption is filed not less than eight months prior to the
start of production, a manufacturer is free to file that petition at
any time of its own choosing. Moreover, a manufacturer filing a
petition knows that NHTSA must act on it within 120 days after it is
filed. Manufacturers can therefore both control and predict when NHTSA
will release its decision in response to an exemption petition,
particularly since the agency's practice has traditionally been to use
to full 120 days allocated to the task.
    NHTSA's experience in processing requests for confidential
treatment for make, model name, line and model year information
contained in parts marking exemption petitions strongly suggests that
some or all of this information is often in the public domain when
NHTSA acts on the exemption petition. We also note that in some
instances the make, model name, line and model year information has
been found to be publicly available when the petition for exemption and
accompanying request for confidential treatment were submitted. In at
least one instance, the ``confidential'' information at issue was
``leaked'' to members of the automotive press several months before the
request for confidential treatment was made.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing that make, model name,
line and model year information submitted in petitions for exemption
under 49 CFR part 543 shall be presumed to be confidential up to the
date that NHTSA acts on the exemption petition or until this
information enters the public domain, whichever comes first. We request
comments on this proposal.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\3\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible. DOT's guidelines
may be accessed at https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/
files/subject_areas/statistical_policy_and_research/data_

quality_guidelines/html/guidelines.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule. If a comment is received
too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that
one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion
for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

V. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive
Order 13563.
    This action would amend part 512 to modify agency procedures for
receiving and processing requests for confidential treatment. There are
no new significant burdens on information submitters or related costs
that would require the development of a full cost/benefit evaluation.
Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management
and Budget.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:

    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.

NHTSA requests public comment on whether (a) ``regulatory approaches
taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking and (b) the above policy statement has any implications for
this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) I certify that this
rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would impose
no additional reporting obligations on small entities. This proposed
rule addresses the Agency's receipt and treatment of requests for
confidential treatment and would modify procedures for all submitters,
including small entities, with regard to confidentiality
determinations. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required for this proposed action.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
this action would not have ``federalism implications'' because it would
not have ``substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,''
as specified in section 1 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule
generally would apply to private motor vehicle and motor vehicle
equipment manufacturers, entities that sell motor vehicles and
equipment and motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, Executive Order
13132 is not implicated and consultation with State and local officials
is not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by

State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This proposal would not result in the expenditure
by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100 million annually.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows: This proposed rule
would addresses the Agency's receipt and treatment of requests for
confidential treatment and would modify procedures for all submitters
with regard to confidentiality determinations. The rule would not have
retroactive effect.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This proposal would
make changes to the materials that persons requesting confidential
treatment of documents submit to NHTSA to justify confidential
treatment.
    In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking
comment on a revision of a currently approved collection.
    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: 49 CFR part 512, Confidential Business Information.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0025.
    Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    Persons who submit information to the agency and seek to have the
agency withhold some or all of that information from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), 5 U.S.C. 552, must provide
the agency with sufficient support that justifies the confidential
treatment of that information. In addition, a request for confidential
treatment must be accompanied by: (1) A complete copy of the
submission; (2) a copy of the submission containing only those portions
for which confidentiality is not sought with the confidential portions
redacted; and (3) either a second complete copy of the submission or
alternatively those portions of the submission that contain the
information for which confidentiality is sought. Furthermore, the
requestor must submit a completed certification as provided in 49 CFR
part 512, Appendix A. See generally 49 CFR part 512 (NHTSA Confidential
Business Information regulations). Requestors who submit their requests
for confidential treatment electronically must only provide one copy of
the complete submission and one copy of the submission containing only
those portions for which confidentiality is not sought with the
confidential portions redacted along with their supporting
justification for their request for confidential treatment and a
completed certification.
    The proposed rule would amend Part 512 to require the
identification of the NHTSA official requesting the information claimed
as confidential, the date of the request, the subject matter of the
request and the form in which the request was made. The proposal would
also amend section 512.8 to more explicitly require that requesters
specify the factual basis for any claim that materials claimed as
confidential are voluntarily submitted and, where applicable, to
specify which materials are voluntarily submitted and which are not.
Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the Information:
    NHTSA receives confidential information for use in its activities,
which include investigations, rulemaking actions, program planning and
management, and program evaluation. The information is needed to ensure
the agency has sufficient relevant information for decision-making in
connection with these activities. Some of this information is submitted
voluntarily, as in rulemaking, and some is submitted in response to
compulsory information requests, as in investigations.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
    There are thousands of potential submitters of claims for
confidential treatment of information, including vehicle manufacturers,
equipment manufacturers, and registered importers. The vast majority of
these requests, however, have come, and will continue to come, from
large manufacturers. Based on our recent experience with submissions,
we estimate that we will receive approximately 500 requests for
confidential treatment of information annually. A vast majority of
these requests come from a small number entities. Therefore some
entities subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction will file multiple requests
while a majority will file none at all.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information
    To the extent that there is an ``average'' submission, preparation
of a request for confidential treatment, including the review and
marking of documents and writing a request letter, consumes 2-4 hours.
In the case of submissions by large manufacturers, which often consist
of hundreds of pages of information, on average, it would probably take
about eight and half hours to prepare the submission. Some submissions,
usually those related to major agency investigations, may require
hundreds of hours of time for document review, marking, organization
and preparation of request letters. On the other hand, the typical
small business that submits a single blueprint should only need about
five (5) minutes to fully comply with the regulation. We believe that
10 hours per request in reasonable estimate of the time it takes to
submit response given that differences in amount of time it takes to
prepare individual each request. We believe that the modifications to
this collection will increase the burden of submitting a request for
confidential treatment by 15 minutes or less. The total number of
burden hours is estimated at 5000 hours (10 hours x 500 requests/year)
for 49 CFR part 512. Comments are invited on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have practical utility.

     Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the
information collection is accurate.
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are
due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
    The agency recognizes that the collection of information contained
in today's proposed rule may be subject to revision in response to
public comments.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This proposed action does not meet
either of these criteria.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 512

    Administrative procedure and practice, Confidential business
information, Freedom of information, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting
and record keeping requirements.

Proposed Regulatory Text

    For reasons discussed in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49
CFR part 512 as follows:

0
1. The authority for Part 512--Confidential Business Information
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 30166, 49
U.S.C. 30167; 49 U.S.C. 32307; 49 U.S.C. 32505; 49 U.S.C. 32708; 49
U.S.C. 32910; 49 U.S.C. 33116; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95.

0
2. Amend Section 512.4 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  512.4  When requesting confidentially, what should I submit?

* * * * *
    (e) Any person submitting information pursuant to 49 CFR part 537
requesting that the information be withheld from public disclosure
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) shall comply with this Section as well as
with Sec.  537.5.
0
3. Amend Section 512.5 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  512.5  How many copies should I submit?

    (a) Except as provided for in either paragrpah (c) or (d), a person
must send the following in hard copy or electronic format to the Chief
Counsel when making a claim for confidential treatment covering
submitted material:
* * * * *
    (d) A claim for confidential treatment submitted electronically in
accordance with this part must include:
    (1) A complete copy of the submission, and
    (2) A copy of the submission containing only the portions for which
no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those
portions for which confidential treatment is claimed have been
redacted.
    (3) A copy of any special software required to review materials for
which confidential treatment is requested and user instructions must
also be provided.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Section 512.6 by revising paragraph (c)(1) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  512.6  How should I prepare documents when submitting a claim for
confidentiality?

* * * * *
    (c) Submissions in electronic format accompanying a request for
confidential treatment in hard copy or paper--(1) Persons submitting a
claim for confidential treatment in hardcopy or on paper as specified
in Sec.  512.7(a) of this part may submit all or part of the
information claimed as confidential in an electronic format. Except for
early warning reporting data submitted to the agency under 49 CFR part
579, information submitted in an electronic format shall be submitted
in a physical storage medium such as an optical disk, portable hard
drive or similar device and shall be submitted with the hardcopy or
paper request for confidential treatment. The exterior of the medium
(e.g., the disk or portable hard drive itself) shall be permanently
labeled with the submitter's name, the subject of the information and
the words ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION''.
* * * * *
    (d) Submissions in electronic format accompanying a request for
confidential treatment submitted electronically--(1) Persons submitting
a claim for confidential treatment electronically as specified in Sec.
512.7(b) of this part shall mark the materials claimed to be
confidential in accordance with the requirements set forth in
paragraphs d(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in other
than their original format must be marked ``Confidential Business
Information'' or ``Entire Page Confidential Business Information'' at
the top of each page. If only a portion of a page is claimed to be
confidential, that portion shall be designated by brackets. Files
submitted in their original format that cannot be marked as described
above must, to the extent practicable, identify confidential
information by alternative markings using existing attributes within
the file or means that are accessible through use of the file's
associated program. When alternative markings are used, such as font
changes or symbols, the submitter must use one method consistently for
electronic files of the same type within the same submission. The
method used for such markings must be described in the request for
confidentiality. Files and materials that cannot be marked internally,
such as video clips or executable files or files provided in a format
specifically requested by the agency, shall be renamed prior to
submission so the words ``Confidential Bus Info'' appears in the file
name or,

if that is not practicable, the characters ``Conf Bus Info'' or
``Conf'' appear. In all cases, a submitter shall provide an electronic
copy of its request for confidential treatment.
    (3) Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in other
than their original format must be marked with consecutive page numbers
or sequential identifiers so that any page can be identified and
located using the file name and page number. Confidential portions of
electronic files submitted in their original format must, if
practicable, be marked with consecutive page numbers or sequential
identifiers so that any page can be identified and located using the
file name and page number. Confidential portions of electronic files
submitted in their original format that cannot be marked as described
above must, to the extent practicable, identify the portions of the
file that are claimed to be confidential through the use of existing
indices or placeholders embedded within the file. If such indices or
placeholders exist, the submitter's request for confidential treatment
shall clearly identify them and the means for locating them within the
file. If files submitted in their original format cannot be marked with
page or sequence number designations and do not contain existing
indices or placeholders for locating confidential information, then the
portions of the files that are claimed to be confidential shall be
described by other means in the request for confidential treatment. In
all cases, submitters shall provide an electronic copy of their request
for confidential treatment.
    (4) Electronic media may be submitted only in commonly available
and used formats.
0
5. Revise Section 512.7 to read as follows:

Sec.  512.7  Where should I send the information for which I am
requesting confidentiality?

    (a) Claims for confidential treatment submitted in hardcopy or on
paper must be submitted in accordance with the provisions of this
regulation to the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building W41-326,
Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Claims for confidential treatment submitted electronically must
be submitted in accordance with the provisions of this regulation by
the designated method or to the designated NHTSA system permitting
electronic submission.
0
6. Revise Section 512.8 to read as follows:

Sec.  512.8  What supporting information should I submit with my
request?

    When requesting confidential treatment, the submitter shall:
    (a) Explain why the information for which confidential treatment is
being requested has been submitted to NHTSA, and specifically identify:
    (1) Any request by the government for the information submitted,
including the subject matter of the request, the form in which the
request was made, the date of the request, and the name of any
government official requesting the information, and
    (2) Any statute, regulation, order, subpoena, information request
or other compulsory process that requires the submission;
    (b) Describe the information for which confidential treatment is
being requested;
    (c) Identify the confidentiality standard(s) under which the
request for confidential treatment should be evaluated in accordance
with Sec.  512.15, and indicate whether the materials for which
confidential treatment is sought were, either in whole or in part,
voluntarily submitted or were required to be submitted by statute or
regulation or other requirement. The request must also specify with
sufficiency what information was submitted voluntarily and what
information was required to be submitted;
    (d) Justify the basis for the claim of confidentiality under the
confidentiality standard(s) identified pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section by describing:
    (1) Why the information qualifies as a trade secret, if the basis
for confidentiality is that the information is a trade secret;
    (2) What the harmful effects of disclosure would be and why the
effects should be viewed as substantial, if the claim for
confidentiality is based upon substantial competitive harm;
    (3) What significant NHTSA interests will be impaired by disclosure
of the information and why disclosure is likely to impair such
interests, if the claim for confidentiality is based upon impairment to
government interests;
    (4) What measures have been taken by the submitter to ensure that
the information is not customarily disclosed or otherwise made
available to the public, if the basis for confidentiality is that the
information is voluntarily submitted;
    (5) The factual basis supporting any and all claims that any of the
materials for which confidential treatment is sought were voluntarily
submitted or were required to be submitted by any statute or
regulation; and
    (6) If the information is otherwise entitled to protection,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
    (e) Indicate if any items of information fall within any of the
class determinations included in Appendix B to this part;
    (f) Indicate the time period during which confidential treatment is
sought; and
    (g) State the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail
address of the person to whom NHTSA's response to any inquiries should
be directed.
0
7. Section 512.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  512.13  What are the consequences for noncompliance with this
part?

    (a) If the submitter fails to comply with Sec.  512.4 of this part
at the time the information is submitted to NHTSA or does not request
an extension of time under Sec.  512.11, the claim for confidentiality
may be waived. If the information is placed in a public docket or file,
such placement is disclosure to the public within the meaning of this
part and may preclude any claim for confidential treatment. The Chief
Counsel may notify a submitter of information or, if applicable, a
third party from whom the information was obtained, of inadequacies
regarding a claim for confidential treatment and deny the request as
described in Sec.  512.18(b) or may allow the submitter additional time
to supplement the claim, but has no obligation to provide either notice
or additional time.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 512.17 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  512.17  How long should it take to determine whether information
is entitled to confidential treatment?

* * * * *
    (b) When information claimed to be confidential is not requested
under the Freedom of Information Act, but a determination is necessary
because it is required by a statute, regulation or other requirement,
the Chief Counsel will make a determination on the claim within in a
reasonable period of time, at the discretion of the Chief Counsel.
    (c) When information claimed to be confidential is not requested
under the Freedom of Information Act, and a determination is not
otherwise required by a statute, regulation or by other requirement,
the Chief Counsel may make a determination on the claim when:
    (1) The Chief Counsel, at his or her discretion, decides that
making a determination of confidential treatment

may assist in ensuring that persons submitting requests for
confidential treatment comply with this part and applicable law;
    (2) The Chief Counsel, at his or her discretion, decides that
making a determination is otherwise necessary; or
    (3) The Chief Counsel, at his or her discretion, decides that
making such a determination is in the public interest.
* * * * *
0
9. Appendix F to part 512 is redesignated at Appendix G to part 512.
0
10. A new Appendix F is added to read as follows:

Appendix F to Part 512--Exemptions From Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard

    The Chief Counsel has determined that the name of a line, make,
model and the model year of a vehicle that is the subject of a
petition filed under 49 CFR part 543, if released, is likely to
cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the
manufacturer submitting the information: The foregoing determination
will remain effective until the information specified above enters
the public domain or the agency issues a determination in response
to the petition, whichever comes first.

    Dated: December 18, 2015.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2015-32585 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42224-42225]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18032]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9982-57--Region 3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 announces
the deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site (Site)
located in Morgantown, West Virginia, from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP), have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance,

monitoring, and five-year reviews have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective August 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005. All documents in the
docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    U.S. EPA Region III, Superfund Records Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029;<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Morgantown Public Library, 373 Spruce Street, Morgantown, WV 26505;
(304) 291-7425, Monday through Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS23 1650
Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas, Morgantown, West Virginia. A Notice of
Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register 83
FR 28586 on June 20, 2018.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
July 20, 2018. No public comments were received and EPA believes the
deletion action remains appropriate.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 31, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``WV'',
``Ordnance Works Disposal Areas'', ``Morgantown''.

[FR Doc. 2018-18032 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P