[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
