Opinion ID: 495208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Will Disclosure Impair Other Interests Covered by Exemption 4?

Text: 33 As noted earlier, see p. 282 this circuit has not heretofore decided whether the test set forth in National Parks constitutes the exclusive means by which the government can sustain its exemption 4 burden, i.e., whether information can be justifiably withheld where disclosure would harm the agency in ways unrelated to its ability to gather information in the future. The First Circuit recently confronted this precise question and, after carefully examining both the relevant legislative history and case law, concluded that [i]n view of the legitimate governmental interest of efficient operation, it would do violence to the statutory purpose of exemption 4 were the Government to be disadvantaged by disclosing information which serves a valuable purpose and is useful for the effective execution of its statutory responsibilities. 9 to 5 Organization, 721 F.2d at 11; see also id. at 12 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (agreeing with the court's expansion of the National Parks test while disagreeing with the application of the expanded standard to the case before the court). 34 We find the First Circuit's reasoning persuasive; however, we again conclude that the NRC has not sustained its burden of specifying the relevant governmental interest which the Congress sought to protect by enacting exemption 4 [or demonstrating] how that interest will be harmed by public disclosure of the specific information which has been requested. Id. at 10. 35 The NRC's impairment of agency efficiency contention rests, it appears, 35 on its assertion that even if [it] could somehow get the same information it now receives from INPO in these reports--e.g., by periodic issuances of subpoenas, see supra pp. 283-84 and notes 24-26--the sacrifice in the efficiency of its operations and the burdens it would necessarily bear in securing the information through other means would be too heavy. 36 We note, however, that there is a very real possibility that the NRC's existing regulations encompass a requirement that its licensees submit these reports. The relevant prescription, 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.73(c), states: 36 The Commission may require the licensee to submit specific additional information beyond that required by [10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.73(b) ] if the Commission finds that supplemental material is necessary for complete understanding of an unusually complex or significant event. 37 The NRC's argument that it could not demand that the licensees furnish it with copies of the reports as a condition to their status as licensees, 37 is backed up only by an NRC staff member's statement that plausibly could be interpreted to mean either that the Commission simply has not made such a demand in the past, or that it lacks the authority to do so under the regulation. 38 A linchpin of the NRC's argument in this case, we reiterate, is that the INPO reports are necessary for complete understanding of ... unusually complex or significant event[s]. 39 38 We therefore remand the question whether the Commission has authoritatively construed the regulation to be inapplicable to third-party reports. If the Commission or the lower court interprets the regulation as authorizing the NRC to obtain third-party reports, the court should then obtain the Commission's views on the application of the regulation to the facts of the case; that is, in view of the regulation's authorization to require additional material if necessary for the Commission's understanding of an unusually complex or significant event, does the regulation cover SERs, SOERs, and O & MRs? If so, the district court should afford the agency the opportunity to show, if it so chooses, that exercising its full authority under this regulation would damage some identifiable agency interest relating to program effectiveness or efficiency. If, on the other hand, the regulation does not authorize the Commission to obtain third-party reports, the district court should then consider the NRC's contention that resort to other means of obtaining this information would significantly impair efficient operation[s] or effective execution of [NRC's] statutory responsibilities, 9 to 5 Organization, 721 F.2d at 11.