[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 149-153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34228]



[[Page 149]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1327

[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3280]
RIN 2127-AG21


Procedures for Participating in and Receiving Data From the 
National Driver Register Problem Driver Pointer System

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule announces that the changes that were made in 
an interim final rule to the agency's National Driver Register 
regulation to implement the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, will 
remain in effect. The Pilot Records Improvement Act authorized air 
carriers to receive information from the National Driver Register (NDR) 
regarding the motor vehicle driving records of individuals who are 
seeking employment with an air carrier as a pilot. The interim final 
rule established the procedures for those pilots to request, and for 
those air carriers to receive, NDR information. In addition, this final 
rule further amends the regulation by extending until December 31, 
1997, the date until which air carrier file checks can be submitted 
directly to the NDR for processing.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on January 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Holden, Chief, Driver 
Register and Traffic Records Division, NTS-32, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone (202) 366-4800 or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Assistant Chief 
Counsel for General Law, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-30, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Driver Register (NDR) is a central file of information 
on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor vehicle have been 
denied, revoked, suspended, or canceled, for cause, or who have been 
convicted of certain serious traffic-related violations, such as racing 
on the highways or driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs.
    As provided in the NDR Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 30301 et 
seq., State chief driver licensing officials are authorized to request 
and receive information from the NDR for driver licensing and driver 
improvement purposes. When an individual applies for a driver's 
license, for example, these State officials are authorized to request 
and receive NDR information to determine whether the applicant's 
driver's license has been withdrawn for cause in any other State. 
Because the NDR is a nationwide index, chief driver licensing officials 
need to submit only a single inquiry to obtain this information.
    State chief driver licensing officials are also authorized under 
the NDR Act to request NDR information on behalf of other authorized 
NDR users for transportation safety purposes. The NDR Act authorizes 
the following transportation entities to receive NDR information for 
limited transportation safety purposes: the National Transportation 
Safety Board and the Federal Highway Administration for accident 
investigation purposes; employers and prospective employers of motor 
vehicle operators; the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding 
any individual who has received or applied for an airman's certificate; 
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and employers or prospective 
employers of railroad locomotive operators; and the U.S. Coast Guard 
regarding any individual who holds or who has applied for a license, 
certificate of registry, or a merchant mariner's document. (The Coast 
Guard has been authorized in recent legislation, section 207 of Pub. L. 
104-324, to request and receive NDR information also regarding any 
officer, chief warrant officer, or enlisted member of the Coast Guard 
or Coast Guard Reserve.) The Act also provides that individuals can 
learn whether information about themselves is on the NDR file and can 
receive any such information.
    On October 9, 1996, the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. 
L. 104-264, was enacted into law. Section 502 of that Act contained an 
amendment to the NDR Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 30305, 
authorizing air carriers to receive NDR information regarding 
individuals who are seeking employment as a pilot with an air carrier.

Interim Final Rule

    On May 19, 1997, NHTSA published an interim final rule in the 
Federal Register, 62 FR 27193, amending the regulations that implement 
the National Driver Register Act. The interim final rule established 
the procedures for individuals who are seeking employment with an air 
carrier as a pilot to request, and for those air carriers to receive, 
NDR information.
    In particular, the interim final rule explained that the procedures 
that air carriers would use to receive NDR information would be similar 
to those used by the employers of motor vehicle and railroad locomotive 
operators, the FAA, the FRA, and the U. S. Coast Guard in checking 
their applicants for employment or certification.
    Air carriers may not initiate a request for NDR information. 
Rather, the individual seeking employment as a pilot must do so. To 
initiate a request, the individual must either complete, sign and 
submit a request for an NDR file search, or authorize the air carrier 
to request the NDR file search by completing and signing a written 
consent. The request or written consent must state that NDR records are 
being requested; state specifically who is authorized to receive the 
records; be dated and signed by the individual (the pilot); and state 
specifically that the authorization is valid for only one search of the 
NDR. It must also state specifically that the NDR identifies 
``probable'' matches that require further inquiry for verification, 
that it is recommended (but not required) that the air carrier verify 
matches with the state of record, and state that individuals have the 
right to request NDR records regarding themselves to verify the 
accuracy of any information on the file pertaining to them.
    The interim final rule explained that the Pilot Records Improvement 
Act provides that an individual, about whom a request has been made, is 
entitled to receive written notice about the request for records and of 
the individual's right to receive a copy of any records provided to the 
prospective employer. Accordingly, the request or written consent that 
the individual completes must also include this notice.
    The interim final rule explained that the Pilot Records Improvement 
Act provides that requests for NDR information are to be submitted 
through State chief driver licensing officials. Such requests may be 
submitted through the chief driver licensing official of any State that 
participates in the NDR's Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS). The 
interim rule indicated that, at the time of publication, 49 States (all 
States, except for the State of Oregon and the District of Columbia) 
were participating in the NDR PDPS. Since that time, Oregon has 
completed its transition to the PDPS.

[[Page 150]]

Accordingly, all 50 States are now participating in the new NDR system.
    The agency recognized in the interim final rule, however, that even 
participating States will require some time to develop procedures for 
processing these air carrier requests and to train their personnel in 
the new procedures. Accordingly, to provide the States with sufficient 
preparation time, the agency indicated in the interim final rule that 
the NDR would accept air carrier requests for NDR information directly 
for a limited period of time. The interim regulation provided that such 
requests may be submitted directly to the NDR for processing until 
September 30, 1997. After that date, the agency stated that air 
carriers would be required to submit requests through a State chief 
driver licensing official. The agency expressed in the interim final 
rule its belief that this period (until September 30, 1997) would 
provide sufficient planning time for participating States. As explained 
more fully later in this notice, the agency has since notified air 
carriers that this deadline was being extended.
    The interim regulation provided that requests submitted through 
State chief driver licensing officials must follow procedures 
established by the State and requests submitted directly to the NDR 
must follow NDR procedures. For example, individuals must verify their 
identity in accordance with State procedures when they submit requests 
through a State. When individuals submit requests directly to the NDR, 
their requests must be notarized.
    Under the interim regulation, if a request has been submitted 
directly to the NDR, the response will be provided from the NDR 
directly to the air carrier. If a request has been submitted through a 
State chief driver licensing official, the response will be provided 
from the NDR to the chief driver licensing official, who in turn will 
provide it to the air carrier.
    The NDR response will indicate whether a match (probable 
identification) was found and, if so, the response will also identify 
the State in which the full substantive record can be found (the State 
of record). In the interim final rule, the agency encouraged air 
carriers that receive matches to obtain the substantive data relating 
to the match from the State of record to determine whether the person 
described in the record is in fact the subject individual before taking 
further action. The agency explained that air carriers would not 
receive information that was entered in the NDR if the information 
concerned a licensing action that took place more than five years 
before the date of the request, unless the information concerned a 
revocation or suspension still in effect on the date of the request.
    The agency also explained in the interim final rule that the Pilot 
Records Improvement Act of 1996 provided that air carriers that 
maintain, or request and receive NDR information about an individual 
must provide the individual a reasonable opportunity to submit written 
comments to correct any inaccuracies contained in the records before 
making a final hiring decision with respect to the individual.
    For additional information regarding requests authorized under the 
Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, including sample forms, the 
agency cited FAA Advisory Circular 120-68.
    Finally, the agency explained that part 1327 currently provides 
that a third party may be used by a person authorized to receive NDR 
information (an authorized user) to forward requests for NDR file 
searches (through a chief driver licensing official) to the NDR; 
however, the third party requester may not receive the NDR response 
since the third party is not authorized by the NDR Act to receive NDR 
information. The agency indicated that part 1327 provides that both the 
authorized user and the individual concerned must sign a written 
consent authorizing the third party to forward requests for NDR file 
searches (through a chief driver licensing official) to the NDR, and 
that this portion of part 1327 has not been changed by this interim 
final rule.

Request for Comments

    NHTSA requested comments from interested persons on the procedures 
put in place by the interim final rule published in May. Comments were 
due no later than July 18, 1997. NHTSA stated in the interim final rule 
that all comments submitted in response to the rule would be considered 
and that the agency would publish a notice responding to the comments 
and, if appropriate, further amendments would be made to the provisions 
of part 1327.

Comments Received

    NHTSA received submissions from five commenters in response to the 
interim final rule. The commenters included the National Air 
Transportation Association (NATA); the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters (IBT), Airline Division; the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which represents Motor Vehicle 
Administrators in all the States; and the Division of Motor Vehicles in 
two individual States--New Jersey and Wisconsin.
    The comments raised in these submissions and the agency's response 
thereto are discussed below:

1. Initiating an NDR File Check

    Subparagraph 1327.6(f)(1) of the interim rule provided that, to 
initiate a file check of the NDR, the individual seeking employment as 
a pilot with an air carrier shall either complete, sign and submit a 
request directly to the chief driver licensing official of a 
participating State (in accordance with procedures established by the 
State) or authorize the air carrier with whom the individual is seeking 
employment to request a file check through the State (in accordance 
with State procedures), by signing a written consent.
    In its comments regarding the interim rule, AAMVA asserted that, 
``The rule requires individuals submitting a request for an NDR check 
to verify [their] identity in accordance with State procedures.'' AAMVA 
expressed concern that such a requirement could require a personal 
visit to a driver licensing office, and AAMVA recommended that 
individuals should be permitted instead to submit applications through 
the mail, perhaps with a notarized signature to permit verification of 
identity.
    The interim regulation provided that NDR file checks must be 
submitted in accordance with procedures established by the States. It 
did not prescribe what those procedures must provide. The regulation 
did not require, for example, that States establish procedures that 
require individuals to visit a driver licensing office in person. In 
accordance with the interim NDR procedures, when individuals submitted 
requests directly to the NDR, these individuals were required to verify 
their identity using a notarized signature. The interim regulation did 
not prevent a State from establishing a similar procedure. These 
portions of the interim regulation have not been changed.
    AAMVA recommended also in its comments that NHTSA include in its 
final rule a model form that individuals and air carriers can use when 
requesting the NDR check. The purpose of NHTSA's part 1327 regulation 
is to establish the conditions for States to participate in the NDR and 
to establish the conditions and procedures for others to use the NDR. 
As explained in the interim final rule, detailed information regarding 
the manner in which requests authorized under the Pilot Records 
Improvement Act of 1996 are to be submitted, was included in Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA)

[[Page 151]]

Advisory Circular 120-68. The Circular included sample forms. 
Individuals or air carriers that are interested in obtaining copies of 
these forms, are encouraged to contact a State Department of Motor 
Vehicles or the National Driver Register.
    The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) suggested that, 
since ``NDR searches can be initiated by third parties,'' NHTSA should 
develop a standard form, similar to the form in FAA Advisory Circular 
120-68, to facilitate the submission of third party requests. It is 
important to note that while third parties may be used by a person 
authorized to receive NDR information to forward requests for searches 
of the NDR, the third party requester may not receive the NDR response, 
since the third party is not itself authorized under the NDR Act to 
receive NDR information. Accordingly, it has been determined that a 
separate form need not be developed when requests are submitted by 
third parties.

2. File Checks Directly to the NDR

    Subparagraph 1327.6(f)(2) of the interim rule provided that NDR 
file checks may be submitted directly to the NDR, rather than through a 
State chief driver licensing official, until September 30, 1997. After 
that date, according to the interim final rule, requests would have to 
be submitted through a participating State.
    AAMVA and two individual Motor Vehicle Divisions (from the States 
of New Jersey and Wisconsin) all urged the agency to extend this 
deadline beyond September 1997. AAMVA stated that one of its members 
had indicated that it would not be able to make the necessary 
modifications until December 1, 1997. The New Jersey Division of Motor 
Vehicles commented that it would have difficulty making preparations to 
process these types of requests until January 1, 1998.
    The agency recognized, in its interim final rule, that States would 
require some time to develop procedures for processing air carrier 
requests and to train their personnel in the new procedures. In 
September 1997, NHTSA determined that no State was ready yet to process 
these air carrier complaints. Accordingly, the agency made a 
determination that an extension of time was warranted and it notified 
NATA and air carriers that the NDR would continue to process air 
carrier requests through December 31, 1997. Other interested parties, 
including AAMVA and State Departments of Motor Vehicles, were also 
notified.
    Although NHTSA encourages States to complete their preparations and 
to begin processing these requests prior to December 31, 1997, if 
possible, the regulation has been amended to provide for the submission 
of requests directly to the NDR until December 31, 1997.
    NATA asserted that some air carriers are likely to send requests 
directly to the NDR after the deadline has passed, and recommended that 
NHTSA allow a transitional ``grace period'' during which time any 
request received by the Washington, D.C. offices will still be 
processed. The agency has decided not to adopt this recommendation. As 
stated in the interim final rule, the NDR will not process air carrier 
requests postmarked after the established deadline. Accordingly, any 
request received directly from an air carrier after December 31, 1997, 
will be returned to the air carrier for submission through a 
participating State.
    NHTSA agrees, however, with NATA that steps should be taken to 
provide for a smooth transitional period. During the month of December, 
the agency reminded State Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV's), air 
carriers and their membership organizations (AAMVA, NATA and the AIR 
Conference), of the changes that were due to take place to the 
submission procedures after December 31, 1997. The agency plans also to 
provide periodically to NATA, a list for distribution to air carriers, 
of the States that have become ready to accept and process air carrier 
requests.
    AAMVA noted in its comments that when the NDR ceases to accept 
directly-submitted air carrier requests, the requests must all be 
processed by ``participating States.'' AAMVA asks how requests will be 
handled for individuals in jurisdictions that are not participating in 
PDPS and recommends that the rule address this issue.
    The agency finds that this issue does not warrant that any 
adjustments be made to the rule. All 50 States participate in the NDR 
PDPS. The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction that is not yet 
a ``participating State,'' and it is taking steps to complete its 
conversion process to PDPS. Thirty States are currently ready to 
process air carrier requests, and the other States are taking steps to 
become ready. More importantly, however, the interim regulation did not 
require that requests regarding an individual seeking employment as a 
pilot with an air carrier be submitted to any particular State chief 
driver licensing official (such as in the State in which the air 
carrier is incorporated or does business, or in which the individual 
resides or is licensed). Requests regarding such individuals can be 
submitted to a participating State. Accordingly, no changes have been 
made to the interim final rule as a result of this comment.

3. Request for an NDR File Check or Written Consent

    Subparagraph 1327.6(f)(3) of the interim rule listed the 
information that must be included in requests for NDR file checks and 
written consent forms.
    Section 502 of the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 provides 
that, if records have been requested and provided about an individual, 
the individual who is the subject of the records is entitled to receive 
written notice of the request and of the individual's right to receive 
a copy of such records. AAMVA asserts in its comments that this 
requirement appears to be contradictory. Since an air carrier is not 
authorized to initiate an NDR check without prior authorization from 
the individual, AAMVA states that it seems a contradiction to say that 
the individual must be notified about any request made.
    NHTSA agrees that the strict application of this statutory 
requirement to NDR requests would result in redundancy. For this 
reason, the agency's interim final rule provided (in section 23 CFR 
1327.6(f)(3)(vi)) that any request for an NDR file check or written 
consent for such a check must specifically state that, ``pursuant to 
Section 502 of the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, the request 
(or written consent) serves as notice of a request for NDR information 
concerning the individual's motor vehicle driving record and of the 
individual's right to receive a copy of such information.'' No 
additional notice must be provided. This portion of the regulation has 
not been changed.

4. Air Carriers Must Provide Reasonable Opportunity To Submit Written 
Comments

    Subparagraph 1327.6(f)(4) of the interim rule stated that air 
carriers that maintain, or request and receive, NDR information about 
an individual must provide the individual a reasonable opportunity to 
submit written comments to correct any inaccuracies contained in the 
records before making a final hiring decision with respect to the 
individual.
    In its comment, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), 
Airline Division, asked, ``What is reasonable opportunity?'' This term 
was used, but was not defined, in the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 
1996.
    Air carriers are reminded that NDR responses will indicate whether 
there has been ``probable,'' not ``positive''

[[Page 152]]

identifications. The agency encourages air carriers that receive 
matches to obtain the substantive data relating to the match from the 
State of record to determine whether the person described in the record 
is in fact the subject individual before taking further action.
    In fact, subparagraph 1327.6(f)(5) of the interim rule specifically 
stated that in the case of a match, ``the air carrier should obtain the 
substantive data relating to the record from the State of record and 
verify that the person named on the probable identification is in fact 
the individual concerned before using the information as a basis for 
any action against the individual.''
    Providing an individual with a ``reasonable opportunity to submit 
written comments to correct any inaccuracies contained in the records 
before making a final hiring decision with respect to the individual'' 
necessarily would require that the individual has had sufficient time 
to obtain and review the record received by the air carrier, to 
determine whether there are any inaccuracies in the record and to 
prepare written comments should corrections be necessary. The agency 
does not have sufficient information upon which to establish a precise 
definition of the term ``reasonable opportunity'' in its regulation. 
Air carriers will need to determine what is reasonable based on the 
procedures they choose to put in place.

5. Applicability of Rule

    The IBT notes that the interim final rule specifically refers to 
``pilots'' only and not to any other aircraft crewmembers and sought 
confirmation that the interim final rule applies only to pilots.
    The IBT is correct. The provisions in the interim final rule 
providing authority to air carriers to receive NDR information about 
individuals, apply only to individuals seeking employment as pilots.

6. General Comments

    The IBT expressed opposition to the agency's interim final rule for 
three reasons. First, according to the IBT, there has been no 
justification provided demonstrating any measurable degree of improved 
safety for the rule. Second, the IBT believes that, while the rule may 
be well intended, it may in effect end pilot employment for a 
measurable number of current and future aviators. Third, the IBT 
asserts that the rule appears to be an unwarranted invasion of 
individual privacy. For these reasons, the IBT urges the agency to 
withdraw the interim final rule. The agency does not share the concerns 
that the IBT expresses in support of its opposition and, for the 
reasons cited below, it will not withdraw the rule.
    With regard to the IBT's assertion that there has been no 
justification provided demonstrating a measurable degree of improved 
safety for the rule, similar objections were raised in 1990 when the 
FAA issued a final rule, implementing a legislative change that 
provided access to NDR information to the FAA. 55 FR 31300. In the 
preamble to that final rule, FAA acknowledged that there was a lack of 
statistical data to support the expanded access. FAA noted, however, 
``that from 1978 to 1987, 6.0 percent of general aviation pilots killed 
in aviation accidents had a blood alcohol level of 0.04 percent or 
more. During that same period, 11,213 people died in general aviation 
accidents. If the rule were to result in the saving of a few lives, the 
potential benefits of the rule would exceed its potential cost.'' FAA 
stated further that it ``believes, in fact, that the rule will be 
significantly more effective than one percent so that potential 
benefits are likely to significantly exceed costs.''
    A recent study (using data from the years 1986-1992) reported that, 
while the vast majority of airline pilots have never been convicted of 
a driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense, 1.96 percent have been 
convicted of such an offense. ``When it comes to air travel there's 
Safety in Numbers,'' Kathleen L. McFadden, OR/MS Today, August 1997, 
p.30. The study found also that ``the presence of even one DWI 
conviction was associated with a doubling of the risk of pilot-error 
accidents. The presence of two or more DWI's almost quadrupled that 
likelihood.'' The study noted that the cost of verifying DWI 
information with the NDR is ``quite inexpensive, only about $2.50 per 
pilot.'' Since the risks associated with having a DWI conviction are so 
high and the costs of identifying pilots who have been convicted of 
such an offense is so low, the agency believes the continued use of 
this information is indeed justified.
    Secondly, the IBT asserts that the rule ``in effect may end pilot 
employment for a measurable number of current and future aviators.'' 
According to the IBT, some carriers have well planned and lengthy 
hiring processes that may permit implementation of the interim final 
rule with little impact. Certain smaller carriers, however, often 
expand their work force based on current need. The IBT concludes that, 
as a result of the interim final rule, carriers will hire applicants 
without any record and ``individuals with any type of driving record'' 
will be ``permanently bar[red]'' from employment.
    The agency disagrees that this will necessarily be the outcome. 
Congress anticipated this concern and, therefore, required in the 
legislation that air carriers that receive NDR information about an 
individual must provide the individual a reasonable opportunity to 
submit written comments to correct any inaccuracies contained in the 
records before making a final hiring decision with respect to the 
individual. Accordingly, it is likely that some carriers will extend 
their hiring processes, but individual pilots that are incorrectly 
identified in a probable match should not be barred from employment.
    To illustrate its concern about ``ending [or preventing] 
employment,'' the IBT stated that, for example, an applicant could be 
turned down for a pilot position when the pilot was ``guilty of 
immature judgment when young that does not now reflect his mental and 
psychological state.'' Steps have been taken to prevent such an 
occurrence, as well. Air carriers will not receive information 
concerning licensing actions if the actions took place more than five 
years before the date of a request, unless the information concerned 
revocations or suspensions still in effect on the date of the request.
    Finally, the IBT asserts that the rule will result in an 
unwarranted invasion of individual privacy. Again, NHTSA does not 
agree. The agency recognizes that the NDR does contain personal 
information about individuals, because it identifies individuals who 
have been convicted of certain serious traffic offenses or who have 
lost or been denied their driving privileges for cause. Moreover, 
Congress recognized that the NDR contains sensitive information. 
Therefore, precautions have been taken, in both the NDR Act and in its 
implementation by the agency, to protect the rights of individuals.
    The NDR Act provides, in subsection 30305(c), that requests for NDR 
information shall be subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act of 
1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The NDR is a Privacy Act system of 
records and, as such, is subject to all restrictions and security 
measures required under that Act. Moreover, additional restrictions and 
security measures are imposed by the NDR Act.
    For example, notwithstanding the provisions of the Privacy Act 
(which permits access to information in a Privacy Act system of records 
under certain conditions), the NDR Act provides that NDR information 
will be relayed only to persons specifically

[[Page 153]]

authorized to receive such information under the Act. These persons 
include States (for driver licensing, driver improvement and 
transportation safety purposes), employers of motor vehicle and 
locomotive operators, certain Federal agencies involved in 
transportation safety, the individuals about whom the records relate 
and, now, air carriers regarding individuals who are seeking employment 
with the air carrier as a pilot.
    In addition, any request for NDR information by an employer, a 
prospective employer or any Federal agency, other than the National 
Transportation Safety Board or the Federal Highway Administration 
during the course of an investigation, must be initiated by the 
individual about whom records are being requested. Further, the NDR has 
nearly completed its conversion to the Problem Driver Pointer System 
(PDPS), a system under which the NDR will no longer contain substantive 
records about traffic offenses, but will instead contain only pointer 
records. The pointer records include identifying information about 
individuals that have been the subject of driver licensing actions and 
the name of the State that took the action. The actual substantive 
information about these offenses must be requested from the States of 
record.
    Congress has determined, and the agency maintains, that the public 
interest that is served by using NDR information to promote 
transportation safety outweighs the privacy concerns that are raised by 
the limited disclosure that is made of NDR information to the select 
group of persons authorized to receive such information, under Federal 
law.
    More importantly, the agency is not at liberty simply to withdraw 
the interim final rule. Federal legislation was enacted by Congress and 
signed into law by the President, requiring air carriers to check and 
authorizing them to receive information from the NDR regarding the 
motor vehicle driving records of individuals who are seeking employment 
with air carriers as pilots. This agency has an obligation to amend its 
regulations to implement this amendment to the NDR Act.
    Accordingly, the interim final rule has not been withdrawn. The 
interim final rule, as amended herein, becomes effective upon 
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Analyses and Notice

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive effect. 
The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 
changes in this final rule merely reflect amendments contained in 
Public Law 104-264. Accordingly, a full regulatory evaluation is not 
required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this action 
on small entities. Based on the evaluation, we certify that this action 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is unnecessary.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are reporting requirements contained in the regulation that 
this rule is amending that are considered to be information collection 
requirements, as that term is defined by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. Accordingly, these requirements have 
been submitted previously to and approved by OMB, pursuant to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 
These requirements have been approved through the year 2000 under OMB 
No. 2127-0001.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality 
of the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Accordingly, the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1327

    Highway safety, Intergovernmental relations, National Driver 
Register, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the interim final rule published 
in the Federal Register of May 19, 1997, 62 FR 27193, amending 23 CFR 
part 1327, is adopted as final, with the following changes:

PART 1327--PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATING IN AND RECEIVING 
INFORMATION FROM THE NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER PROBLEM DRIVER 
POINTER SYSTEM

    1. The authority citation for Part 1327 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Pub.L. 97-364, 96 Stat. 1740, as amended (49 U.S.C. 
30301 et seq.); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 1327.6  [Amended]

    2. Section 1327.6 is amended by changing the date ``September 30, 
1997'' in paragraph (f)(2) to ``December 31, 1997''.

    Issued on: December 30, 1997.
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-34228 Filed 12-30-97; 1:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P