Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
345 U.S. App. D.C. 248, 58 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1294, 244 F.3d 144 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Information submitted to a government agency in response to a request that is legally unenforceable is considered a 'voluntary' submission for the purposes of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 4 analysis, even if the submitting party believed the request was mandatory.
Facts:
- In December 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an Information Request to nine airbag manufacturers and importers for detailed data on their airbag systems from model years 1990-1998.
- The request used mandatory language, stating NHTSA 'hereby requires' the information and warning that failure to respond could result in civil penalties.
- NHTSA expected the nine recipients to collect information from their foreign parents, subsidiaries, and suppliers, meaning more than ten entities would be involved in the information collection.
- Contrary to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act for collections involving ten or more persons, NHTSA did not obtain prior approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this Information Request.
- Believing the request to be mandatory, the nine manufacturers and importers submitted the requested airbag information to NHTSA.
- The Center for Auto Safety later submitted a FOIA request seeking public access to the information the companies had provided to NHTSA.
Procedural Posture:
- The Center for Auto Safety ('Center') submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
- NHTSA denied the request in part, claiming the withheld information was protected by FOIA Exemption 4.
- The Center filed suit against NHTSA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel disclosure of the documents.
- Nine airbag manufacturers and importers intervened in the lawsuit as defendants to oppose the disclosure.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of NHTSA and the intervenor-defendants, holding the submissions were voluntary and exempt from disclosure.
- The Center for Auto Safety, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does information submitted to a government agency in response to a request that is legally unenforceable, due to a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, qualify as 'mandatory' for the purposes of a FOIA Exemption 4 analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Edwards
No. Information submitted in response to a legally unenforceable request is not mandatory; it is treated as a voluntary submission for the purposes of FOIA Exemption 4. The court established an objective test based on the agency's actual legal authority, not the subjective beliefs of the parties. Because NHTSA violated the Paperwork Reduction Act by failing to get OMB approval for an information collection involving ten or more persons, its request was legally unenforceable. Therefore, the manufacturers' submissions, while made under the impression of a legal mandate, are analyzed under the more protective standard for voluntary submissions established in Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under that standard, information is confidential if it is of a kind that would not customarily be released to the public by the person from whom it was obtained. The court found that the District Court erred by conflating this 'customary disclosure' standard with the stricter 'identical information' test from Niagara Mohawk. The case was remanded for the District Court to re-evaluate whether certain information was of a type customarily disclosed, not whether identical information had been previously released.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule that the enforceability of a government information request, not the parties' perceptions, determines whether a submission is mandatory or voluntary under FOIA Exemption 4. By linking the classification to the Paperwork Reduction Act's requirements, the court incentivizes agencies to ensure their information requests are legally sound. Paradoxically, an agency's procedural error can afford the information provider greater protection from disclosure. The ruling also clarifies the 'customary disclosure' test for voluntary submissions, reinforcing that the analysis focuses on the type of information, thereby preventing a few specific, non-identical past disclosures from automatically forfeiting confidentiality for a broader dataset.
