Confidential Business Information, 47-60 [2015-32585]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47-60]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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

[[Page 48]]

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 https://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: (202) 493-2251.
    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 202-366-9324.
    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 https://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 (202) 366-5263, facsimile (202) 366-3820, or Thomas 
Healy, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, (202) 366-7161, 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.

[[Page 49]]

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

[[Page 50]]

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

[[Page 51]]

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 https://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 https://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'' https://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

[[Page 52]]

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 https://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

[[Page 53]]

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,

[[Page 54]]

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

[[Page 55]]

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 https://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: (202) 493-2251.
    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_

[[Page 56]]

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