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

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