[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 126 (Thursday, July 3, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29507-29511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 520
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0160]
RIN 2127-AM35
Recission of NHTSA's 1975 Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule rescinds the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 1975 Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts from the Code of Federal Regulations because they
are outdated, because they were promulgated on the basis of authorities
that have been rescinded, and because the Department of Transportation
has promulgated updated Department-wide National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) procedures that will guide NHTSA's NEPA process.
DATES: This interim rule is effective on July 3, 2025. Written comments
must be received by August 4, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before
visiting Dockets Operations.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. 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. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. You may also
access the docket at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Stephanie Walters by
email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-819-3642.
Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an
agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), adopted its
own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures in
1975 at 49 CFR part 520 (``1975 procedures''), as directed by Executive
Order (E.O.) 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality
(35 FR 4245 (Mar. 7, 1970)), and the Council on Environmental Quality's
Guidelines of April 23, 1971 (36 FR 7724). NHTSA's 1975 procedures
established the initial framework for conducting NHTSA-specific
environmental reviews on its rulemakings and regulatory actions.
Subsequently, E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967 (May 24, 1977)), amended E.O. 11514
to require the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue binding
regulations for NEPA compliance, which it did at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508
(CEQ regulations). Among other sections, 40 CFR 1500.3 stated that the
CEQ regulations were applicable to and binding on all Federal agencies
for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. Accordingly, NHTSA
has followed NEPA's statutory requirements, its 1975 procedures to the
extent they were previously consistent with law, and CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations to assess the environmental impacts of the
agency's actions.
II. Basis for Removing the NHTSA NEPA Regulation
NHTSA has determined that it is appropriate to remove its 1975
procedures because the regulations are no longer consistent with the
governing laws and orders relevant to NEPA, which have changed
significantly since 1975. NHTSA's 1975 procedures were established
pursuant to E.O. 11514 and CEQ's 1971 Guidelines (36 FR 7724). E.O.
11514 was amended by E.O. 11991, which has now been rescinded by E.O.
14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)). CEQ's
1971 Guidelines, which were the basis for CEQ's NEPA Implementing
Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 et seq., have also been repealed. See
Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations,
(90 FR 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025)). These circumstances raise questions
concerning the legal basis for NHTSA to maintain its 1975 procedures
and create a need for NHTSA, which had long relied on CEQ's regulations
in administering NEPA, see supra, to modernize and update its own
regulations.
Further, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA 2023), Public
Law 118-5, amended NEPA to provide more detailed procedures for
environmental reviews. The FRA 2023 amendments require agencies to
facilitate timely and unified Federal reviews, develop a
[[Page 29508]]
single environmental document as appropriate, and comply with page
limits and deadlines. FRA 2023 also outlines guidelines for using
programmatic environmental documents and a streamlined process for
adopting another agency's categorical exclusions. NHTSA's 1975
procedures do not incorporate the FRA 2023 amendments that require the
agency to conduct more effective and efficient environmental reviews.
E.O. 14154 instructed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA
to expedite and simplify the permitting process and to meet deadlines
established in FRA 2023. The E.O. also directed all agencies to
prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives. NHTSA's
1975 procedures do not conform with E.O. 14154, and applying those
procedures would be inconsistent with the directives in E.O. 14154--to
conduct environmental reviews in a timely and efficient manner.
Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025, issued Seven County
Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497
(2025), in which it described the ``transform[ation]'' of NEPA from its
roots as ``a modest procedural requirement,'' into a significant
``substantive roadblock'' that ``paralyze[s]'' ``agency
decisionmaking.'' Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme
Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions
of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a ``course correction''
mandating that courts give ``substantial deference'' to an agency's
reasonable conclusions underlying its NEPA process. Id. at 1513-14. But
the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought
to address, the effect on ``litigation-averse agencies'' that, in light
of judicial ``micromanage[ment],'' had been ``tak[ing] ever more time
and [ ] prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.'' Id. at
1513. NHTSA, thus, is issuing this IFR to align its actions with the
Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring
reasonable NEPA decisions.
NHTSA finds that each of the reasons stated above independently
make the agency's 1975 procedures outdated and inoperative.
Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that it is most appropriate to remove
its 1975 procedures.
In light of recent directives and the repeal of CEQ's NEPA
Implementing Regulations, DOT has updated its NEPA implementing
procedures (DOT Order 5610.1D, ``Departmentwide National Environmental
Policy Act Implementing Procedures'') to be applicable to NHTSA and
several other DOT operating administrations and which will now serve as
the primary procedures for implementing NHTSA environmental reviews.
Subpart D of DOT Order 5610.1D includes NHTSA-specific NEPA procedures.
The action taken under this interim final rule will avoid duplication
and maintain consistency with the departmentwide NEPA implementing
procedures, which aid efficiency, improve the timely completion of the
environmental review process, and refocus agency practice on fostering
informed decisionmaking.
NHTSA acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance
interests in NHSTA's existing NEPA procedures. But revised agency
procedures will have no effect on ongoing NEPA reviews, where NHTSA,
following CEQ guidance, has held it will continue to apply existing
applications. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has just explained, NEPA
``is a purely procedural statute'' that ``imposes no substantive
environmental obligations or restrictions.'' Seven County, 145 S. Ct.
at 1507. Any asserted reliance interests grounded in substantive
environmental concerns are not in accord with the best meaning of the
law and are entitled to ``no . . . weight.'' Dep't of Homeland Sec. v.
Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).
Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is
unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective
procedures. To the extent such interests exist, the Court concludes
that they are ``outweigh[ed]'' by ``other interests and policy
concerns.'' Id. Namely, the complex web of regulations that preexisted
the 2023 amendments to NEPA and the revised DOT repeatedly ``led to
more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of
attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency
action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and
litigation,'' which in turn has meant that ``[f]ewer projects make it
to the finish line,'' or even ``to the starting line.'' Seven County,
145 S. Ct. at 1513-14. This has increased the cost of projects
dramatically, ``both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the
builder of the project,'' resulting in systemic harms to America's
infrastructure and economy. Id. at 1514. Correspondingly, the wholesale
revision and simplification of this regime, effectuated by DOT's new
Procedures, is necessary to assure ensure efficient and predictable
reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects of
all sorts. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any
claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.
III. Basis for Issuing an Interim Final Rule
A. NHTSA Has Good Cause for Proceeding With an Interim Final Rule
For the reasons described in this section, NHTSA has determined
that an interim final rule is the appropriate mechanism to rescind its
1975 procedures and to align with current law. This interim final rule
satisfies the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(d). Although this interim final rule is
effective immediately, comments are solicited from interested members
of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule. NHTSA will
consider these comments in deciding the next steps following this
interim final rule.
The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and
public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and
comment is ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest,'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective
immediately for good cause, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
First, notice and comment is unnecessary because this action merely
rescinds procedures that are already obsolete, are inconsistent with
current law, and have been replaced by departmentwide procedures, DOT
Order 5610.1D, which are consistent with NEPA, as amended by FRA 2023,
and E.O. 14154. In addition, DOT provides a comment opportunity for the
public to address any concerns with NHTSA's revised NEPA implementing
procedures at Subpart D of DOT Order 5610.1D, rendering public comment
on this action duplicative. Next, prior notice and comment would be
impracticable because the repeal of the 1975 procedures must take
immediate effect. Current agency work is impeded because the 1975
procedures are inoperative. DOT Order 5610.1D allows such work to
continue, as well as replaces the role long played by the now-repealed
CEQ regulations in NHTSA's administration of NEPA. However, NHTSA's
1975 procedures must also be repealed to prevent conflicting direction
regarding NHTSA's NEPA procedures, which would result in further
impediments to agency function. In addition, continuing its 1975
procedures in force during the comment period would conflict with
Presidential, government-wide directives and departmentwide
[[Page 29509]]
procedures, and thus be contrary to the public interest, leading to
confusion and inconsistency and resulting in delays and ambiguities
during environmental reviews.
Therefore, NHTSA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule
without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. For these
same reasons, NHTSA finds good cause for this rule to be effective
immediately. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
B. Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Is Not Required for Rules of Agency
Procedure
NHTSA is repealing its prior procedures and practices for
implementing NEPA, a ``purely procedural statute'' which ```simply
prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review
of a project--a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, ``only
one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any
particular substantive outcome.'' Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507,
1511. ``NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's
ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,'' and
``is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final
decision--i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry
out a particular proposed project or activity--``was reasonably
explained.'' Id. at 1511. As such, notice-and-comment procedures are
not required because this revision falls within the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) exception for ``rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). NHTSA's existing
regulations do not dictate what outcomes such consideration must
produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private
citizens. Rather, they prescribe how NHTSA will conduct its NEPA
reviews: detailing the structure of environmental impact statements,
specifying submission requirements, and directing the timing of public
comment periods. These are procedural provisions, not ones that impose
substantive environmental obligations or restrictions. Thus, because
procedural rules do not require notice and comment, they do not require
notice and comment to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) NHTSA's regulations were
not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules
or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An
interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather
than make discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable
rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated
congressional authority. General statements of policy provide notice of
an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory
requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations
for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. Both of
these types of agency action are expressly exempted from notice and
comment by statute, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and do not require notice and
comment for their removal.
IV. Request for Comment
As explained in section III of this document, the APA authorizes
NHTSA to take this interim final action without prior notice or
opportunity for public comment. However, NHTSA is providing an
opportunity for comment on this interim final rule for 30 days after
this action's publication date, and may make further revisions should
its review of any comments submitted suggest that further revisions are
warranted. Any comments related to NHTSA's revised NEPA implementing
procedures should be directed to the docket for DOT's Federal Register
notice for the DOT Order 5610.1D.
V. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Order 12866
This rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)). Therefore,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule under
that Executive Order.
Executive Order 14192
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065
(Jan. 31, 2025)), requires that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory
action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for
elimination.'' Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB
(Memorandum M-25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025)) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory
action as ``an action that has been finalized and has total costs less
than zero.'' This interim final rule, rescinding NHTSA's outdated NEPA
regulations, will have minor cost savings that cannot be quantified. By
removing obsolete regulatory text, this rule will remove any confusion
or inconsistencies regarding NHTSA's NEPA procedures. Therefore, this
interim final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a rule is required to
be published for public comment, agencies must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
Because NHTSA was not required to provide public notice and prior
opportunity for comment on this rule, the analytical requirements of
the RFA do not apply. In addition, NHTSA has concluded that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because the rule only removes requirements that are no
longer applicable or needed.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal
governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact
of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not
have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive
Order 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This rule would not impose any information
collection requirements subject to approval by OMB.
[[Page 29510]]
Executive Order 13132; Federalism Summary Impact Statement
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 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 the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the 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.''
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA believes this interim final rule, if finalized, would not
have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the
human environment because it will not authorize any specific agency
activity or commit resources to a project that may affect the
environment. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to conduct a NEPA
analysis of this interim final rule.
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) specifies clearly
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies clearly the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies clearly the retroactive effect, if any; (5) defines key
terms adequately; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. This rule has no
preemptive effect. It relates only to the removal of procedures related
to a program that has expired. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in
court.
Plain Language
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 require 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 stated clearly?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not 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 interim final rule.
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.
Privacy Act
Although not required by the APA, DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform this rulemaking process. DOT will post these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is optional. 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.). For information on DOT's compliance with
the Privacy Act, see DOT's website at DOT Privacy Program [verbar] US
Department of Transportation.
Congressional Review Act
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, NHTSA will submit to Congress a report
regarding the issuance of this interim final rule prior to the
effective date set forth at the outset of this interim final rule. The
report will state that it has been determined that this interim final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number indicated in this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
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.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and
copy certain portions of your submissions. Please note that pursuant to
the Data Quality Act, 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.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket 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, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
[[Page 29511]]
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link.
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 that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment 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 comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 520
Environmental impact statements.
PART 520--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 49 CFR
1.95, 501.4, and 501.5, NHTSA removes and reserves 49 CFR part 520.
Peter Simshauser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-12363 Filed 7-1-25; 2:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P