Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 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.
150 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

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)
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 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 directlysubmitted 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’’
152 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 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.

§ 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

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Presort Requirements for Periodicals

Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth

revised Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)

standards adopted by the Postal Service

to implement a sectional center facility

(SCF) level of sack for Periodicals

automation and nonautomation

mailings of nonletter-size pieces. An

SCF level of package will not be added.

Only 5-digit and 3-digit packages will be

permitted in the SCF sack. SCF sacks

will be prepared after 5-digit and 3-digit

sacks, and prior to preparing ADC sacks.

EFFECTIVE DATES: Optional preparation

effective January 5, 1998. Preparation of