Unified Registration System

Federal RegisterAug 23, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 360, 365, 366, 368, 385, 387, 390 and 392

[Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349]

RIN 2126-AA22

Unified Registration System

AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The FMCSA amends its regulations to require interstate motor carriers, freight forwarders, brokers, intermodal equipment providers (IEPs), hazardous materials safety permit (HMSP) applicants, and cargo tank facilities under FMCSA jurisdiction to submit required registration and biennial update information to the Agency via a new electronic on-line Unified Registration System (URS). FMCSA establishes fees for the registration system, discloses the cumulative information to be collected in the URS, and provides a centralized cross-reference to existing safety and commercial regulations necessary for compliance with the registration requirements. The final rule implements statutory provisions in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005 (SAFETEA-LU). The URS will streamline the registration process and serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, and identification of, motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants, and cargo tank facilities required to register with FMCSA.

DATES:

Effective Dates:

The final rule is effective October 23, 2015, except for § 390.19 (amendatory instruction number 55) and § 392.9b (amendatory instruction 61), which are effective November 1, 2013, and except for § 366.2 (amendatory instruction 19), which is effective April 25, 2016.

Compliance Dates:

The compliance date for this final rule is October 23, 2015, except that the compliance date for §§ 390.19 and 392.9b is November 1, 2013, and the compliance date for § 366.2 is April 25, 2016.

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by September 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

All background documents, comments, and materials related to this rule may be viewed in docket number FMCSA-1997-2349 using either of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

• Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Wesley Ray, IT Specialist, IT Development Division, (202) 366-3876, or by email at

Wesley.Ray@dot.gov.

Business hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Table of Contents

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments and Documents

B. Privacy Act

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations

III. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the URS

B. Summary of Major Provisions

1. Entities Included in the URS

2. The Application Process

3. Updating URS Information

4. Identification Solely by USDOT Number

5. User Fees

6. Evidence of Financial Responsibility

7. Process Agent Designations

8. Transfers of Operating Authority

9. Impacts on State Registration Systems

10. Compliance Dates

C. Benefits and Costs

IV. Background

A. Legal Authority

B. Regulatory History

V. Discussion of Comments

A. Summary of Comments

B. Overly Complex Application Form

C. Insufficient Technical Information

D. Applicability

1. Cargo Tank Program

2. Certain Intrastate HM Carriers

3. Hazardous Materials Safety Permit Applicants

4. Mexico-Domiciled Carriers

5. Non-Motor Carrier Leasing Companies

6. School Bus Operations

E. Mandatory Electronic Filing

F. Biennial Update

G. Administrative Filings

1. Timeframe for Filing Changes to Name, Address

2. Financial Responsibility for Certain FTA Grantees

3. Financial Responsibility for Private HM Carriers

4. Blanket Agents

H. Potential URS Impacts on Existing Systems and Programs

1. Impacts on PRISM Program

2. Impacts on UCR Agreement

I. Transfers of Operating Authority and Concerns about Reincarnated Carriers

J. Reinstatement of Operating Authority

K. Unauthorized Re-Brokering of Freight

L. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance

M. Other Suggested Revisions to MCSA-1 Form and Instructions

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Part 360, Fees for Motor Carrier Registration and Insurance

B. Part 365, Rules Governing Applications for Operating Authority

C. Part 366, Designation of Process Agent

D. Part 368, Application for a Certificate of Registration to Operate in Municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico International Border or within the Commercial Zones of Such Municipalities

E. Part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures

F. Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers

G. Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, General

H. Part 392, Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles

VII. Regulatory Evaluation of the URS Final Rule: Summary of Calculation of Benefits and Costs

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

D. National Environmental Policy Act

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

J. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

K. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

L. Privacy Impact Analysis

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents identified in this preamble as available in the docket, go to

http://www.regulations.gov

and click on the “Read Comments” box in the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the “Keyword” box, insert “FMCSA-1997-2349” and click “Search.” Next, click “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. Finally, in the “Title” column, click on the document you would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

All comments received are posted without change to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other organization). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register

published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

APA Administrative Procedure Act

ATA American Trucking Associations

BASIC Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Category

BI&PD Bodily Injury and Property Damage

CDL Commercial Driver's License

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle

CR Compliance Review

CSA Compliance Safety Accountability

CVIEW Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window

DBA Doing Business As

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

eFOTM Electronic Field Operations Training Manual

EPT Example Private Trucking

FF Freight Forwarder

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations

FR Federal Register

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HHG Household Goods

HM Hazardous Materials

HMSP Hazardous Materials Safety Permit

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission

ICCTA ICC Termination Act of 1995

IEP Intermodal Equipment Provider

IRP International Registration Plan

IT Information Technology

LLP Limited Liability Partnership

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

MC Motor Carrier

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System

MCSA-1 Application for USDOT Registration/Operating Authority

MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation

NADA-ATDD National Automobile Dealers Association—American Truck Dealers Division

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NPTC National Private Truck Council

NSTA National School Transportation Association

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NTTC National Tank Truck Carriers

OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association

OTRB Act Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PU Power Unit

PRISM Performance and Registration Information Systems Management

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SBA Small Business Administration

SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SSRS Single State Registration System

TIA Transportation Intermediaries Association

UCR Unified Carrier Registration

URS Unified Registration System

U.S.C. United States Code

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

III. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the URS

This final rule establishes the Unified Registration System (URS) required by the ICC Termination Act of 1995

(ICCTA) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

In the ICCTA, Congress enacted 49 U.S.C. 13908, which directed the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to issue regulations to replace certain existing registration and information systems with a single, online, Federal system.

SAFETEA-LU modified the requirements for a unified registration system contained in the ICCTA. The details of these requirements are discussed in section IV.A below (Legal Authority).

Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (Dec. 29, 1995).

Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005).

The Secretary of Transportation has delegated to the Administrator of the FMCSA this authority to carry out functions relating to registration requirements.

See

49 CFR 1.87(a)(5).

The implementation of the URS final rule will consolidate the following registration and information systems: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) identification number system; (2) the 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 commercial registration system; (3) the 49 U.S.C. 13906 financial responsibility information system; and (4) the service of process agent designation system (49 U.S.C. 503 and 13304).

The URS will improve the registration process for motor carriers, property brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants and cargo tank facilities required to register with FMCSA, and streamline the existing Federal registration processes to ensure the Agency can more efficiently track these entities. The URS also will increase public accessibility to data about interstate motor carriers, property brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants, and cargo tank facilities.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was enacted on July 6, 2012.

This legislation includes several provisions that are relevant to the implementation of the URS. However, many of these statutory provisions will require notice-and-comment rulemakings because they are not self-executing and provide discretion in establishing the details for the implementing regulations. Rather than delay issuance of this final rule, and to ensure an appropriate opportunity for public participation in the regulatory changes necessitated by MAP-21, the Agency will initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding(s) to address the necessary regulatory changes. The Agency notes that in some instances, these changes to the planned implementation of the URS program will not require rulemaking but may be addressed during the implementation phase of the URS. The enactment of MAP-21 also necessitates minor changes in the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions presented in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). These changes do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking,

and FMCSA incorporates some of those changes in today's final rule.

Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012).

Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)] (APA), notice and comment rulemaking is not required when the Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The changes made in response to MAP-21 were limited to modifying the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions to incorporate new statutory language regarding affiliations with other regulated entities. The SNPRM had proposed different, but similar language; thus the modification was clearly within the scope of the issues that were subject to notice and comment in the SNPRM. For this reason, the agency believes that, consistent with the APA, providing further opportunity for further public comment on these limited changes is unnecessary.

B. Summary of Major Provisions

1. Entities Included in the URS

The URS final rule applies to every entity under FMCSA's commercial and/or safety jurisdiction, except for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers seeking authority to operate beyond the border commercial zones (Mexico-domiciled

long-haul carriers). SAFETEA-LU amended 49 U.S.C. 13908(b) to require the URS to “serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, and identification of, all foreign and domestic motor carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and others required to register with [DOT].” FMCSA is excluding Mexico-domiciled long-haul carriers at this time because the U.S.-Mexico border is not open to such carriers, other than the participants in the current cross-border long-haul trucking pilot program.

Table 1 describes in detail the different type of entities that must register under the URS established in today's final rule.

See Pilot Program on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Long-Haul Trucking Provisions,

76 FR 40420 (July 8, 2011);

see also http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/intl-programs/trucking/trucking-program.aspx

(last accessed July 31, 2012).

Table 1—Entities Required To Register Under the Unified Registration System

Entity

Description

1. For hire (exempt and non-exempt) or private motor carrier:

a. For-hire motor carrier

A person engaged in the transportation of goods or passengers for compensation.

i. Exempt

A person engaged in transportation exempt from commercial regulation under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135. Exempt motor carriers that operate commercial motor vehicles as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31101 are subject to the safety regulations set forth in 49 CFR chapter III.

ii. Non-exempt

A person engaged in transportation subject to commercial regulation under 49 U.S.C. chapter 139, regardless of whether such transportation is subject to the safety regulations.

b. Private motor carrier

A person who provides transportation of property or passengers, by commercial motor vehicle, and is not a for-hire motor carrier.

2. Broker

A person who, for compensation, arranges, or offers to arrange, the transportation of property in interstate commerce by a non-exempt for-hire motor carrier.

3. Freight forwarder

A person holding itself out to the general public (other than as an express, pipeline, rail, sleeping car, motor, or water carrier) to provide transportation of property for compensation in interstate commerce, and in the ordinary course of its business: (1) Performs or provides for assembling or consolidating of break-bulk, and distributing of shipments; (2) assumes responsibility for transportation from place of receipt to destination; and (3) uses for any part of the transportation a for-hire motor carrier subject to FMCSA commercial jurisdiction.

4. Intermodal equipment provider

A person who interchanges intermodal equipment with a motor carrier pursuant to a written interchange agreement or has a contractual responsibility for the maintenance of the intermodal equipment.

5. Hazardous Materials Safety Permit applicant

A motor carrier that is approved to transport in interstate or intrastate commerce any of the hazardous materials, in the quantity indicated for each, listed under 49 CFR 385.403.

6. Cargo tank facility

A cargo tank and cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer, assembler, repairer, inspector, tester, or design-certifying engineer that is subject to registration requirements under 49 CFR 107.502 and 49 U.S.C. 5108.

2. The Application Process

The entities covered by the URS will be required to register with FMCSA and update registration information provided on the new Form MCSA-1 periodically as required. Entities that already have a USDOT Number do not need to file the Form MCSA-1 until they need to update registration information. FMCSA is requiring that regulated entities fill out and update their registration information electronically using a web-based, online version of Form MCSA-1. The Agency believes mandatory electronic filing will result in substantial cost savings to both applicants and FMCSA. The Agency is developing the online Form MCSA-1 application process to guide the applicant to only the MCSA-1 information pertinent to its operations, and to skip any irrelevant sections. The application process will mimic the interactive, interview format of popular tax preparation software, rather than a static fillable format. Applicants will only be asked questions applicable to their specific operations.

Under the URS application process, a new applicant will be issued an inactive USDOT Number. The inactive USDOT Number will be activated by the Agency only after the Agency has determined that the applicant is willing and able to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and the applicant has satisfied applicable administrative filing requirements, such as evidence of financial responsibility, if applicable, and a process agent designation (49 CFR 390.201(c)(2)).

If a carrier also is seeking operating authority registration (non-exempt for-hire carriers only), the USDOT Number will remain inactive until all protests filed under 49 CFR part 365 have been resolved and the applicant has satisfied all applicable administrative filing requirements. An applicant with an inactive USDOT Number is prohibited from operating in interstate commerce by 49 CFR 392.9b.

The term “evidence of financial responsibility” refers to the forms filed with FMCSA by insurance companies, surety companies, or financial institutions, in accordance with 49 CFR part 387. FMCSA considers the filing of such forms to be evidence that motor carriers and freight forwarders have the necessary insurance coverage, and brokers have the necessary surety bonds or trust fund agreements, in the minimum amounts prescribed by law. Unlike insurance policies, which may cover numerous claims cumulatively exceeding the dollar limits of the policy, broker bonds or trust fund agreements may be depleted if the cumulative amounts of claims filed against the broker for non-performance of its legal obligations exceed the maximum amount of the bond or trust fund agreement. In accordance with sec. 32918(a) of MAP-21, the Agency will immediately suspend the registration of a broker or freight forwarder with a depleted or partially depleted bond.

3. Updating URS Information

This final rule requires all regulated entities to update registration information every 24 months. When there are changes to an entity's legal name, form of business, or address, registration information must be updated sooner. An entity also may update its record with FMCSA at any time within this 24-month period to

provide changes to other information. However, such changes will not relieve an entity of complying with the biennial update requirement. Beginning on November 1, 2013 (the compliance date of the revised biennial update provision), the Agency will issue a warning letter 30 days in advance of a biennial update deadline to notify the entity that its USDOT Number will be deactivated if it fails to comply with the biennial update requirement.

This final rule also requires all entities to notify FMCSA of any changes to legal name, form of business, or address within 30 days of the precipitating change (new 49 CFR 390.201(d)(4)). This requirement will ensure the continuing relevance and viability of the USDOT Number as a unique identifier and repository for safety data associated with a particular entity. In particular, this requirement will allow FMCSA to monitor in a timely manner informational changes affecting all entities holding USDOT Numbers.

4. Identification Solely by USDOT Number

FMCSA will use the USDOT Number as its sole unique identifier for motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders subject to its regulations. The old registration systems administered by FMCSA used four identification numbers: The USDOT Number, which most motor carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction are required to obtain; the Motor Carrier (MC) Number, which was assigned to non-exempt for-hire motor carriers and brokers; the FF Number, which is assigned to freight forwarders;

and the MX Number, which is assigned to Mexico-domiciled carriers operating within the U.S.-Mexico international border commercial zones.

The URS will discontinue issuance of MC, MX, and FF Numbers to those entities who register with FMCSA. However, today's rule will not require motor carriers to remove the obsolete numbers from their vehicles, and those numbers may be used for other purposes such as advertising or marketing. But the Agency encourages carriers to omit these obsolete numbers from new or repainted vehicles.

See

49 U.S.C. 13903.

See

49 U.S.C. 13902(c).

5. User Fees

FMCSA is revising user fees for URS registration, insurance filings, and other services as detailed in Table 2 below. The Agency will charge a $300 registration fee for all entities filing new registration applications. Currently, only non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders must pay a one-time registration fee to FMCSA of $300. SAFETEA-LU provided that the fee for new applicants must as nearly as possible cover the costs of processing the registration, but shall not exceed $300. The recently enacted MAP-21, however, removed this $300 cap on the initial registration fee. FMCSA determined that the amount needed to cover the costs associated with processing the registration filings based on projections of annual new applicants and Agency processing costs substantially exceeded what could be collected through charging $300 per applicant. Consequently, the October 26, 2011 URS supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(SNPRM) proposed to charge the statutory maximum established by SAFETEA-LU for this final rule.

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified Registration System,

76 FR 66506 (Oct. 26, 2011).

Although MAP-21 eliminated the $300 limit, the final rule retains the $300 fee proposed in the SNPRM because the Agency has not developed preliminary estimates on appropriate fees to cover the full costs of operating its URS program, or issued for public comment a proposal concerning such fees. The Agency has opted to initiate, at a later date, a separate rulemaking proceeding to solicit public comment on this issue, rather than delay issuance of this final rule.

FMCSA is reducing the fee currently charged for reinstating operating authority registration after such authority has been revoked from $80 to $10. The Agency is eliminating the existing $10 process agent designation filing fee in keeping with provisions in SAFETEA-LU.

The current $10 fee for filings related to financial responsibility remains unchanged. The fees charged under URS will enable the Agency to recoup the costs associated with processing registration applications and administrative filings to the extent permitted by law. FMCSA retains the existing fees for self-insurance pending resolution of changes in these fees in a separate rulemaking.

SAFETEA-LU, § 4304,

codified at

49 U.S.C. 13908(d)(2).

The Agency codifies its existing practice of waiving filing fees for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grantees. FMCSA also exempts any agency of the Federal government or a State or local government from paying filing fees or user fees to access or retrieve URS data for its own use. Generally, the Agency will charge for clerical, administrative, and information technology (IT) services involved in locating, copying, and certifying records. However, FMCSA will exempt any registered entity from paying fees to access or retrieve its own data. Additional fees are explained in the table below:

Table 2—URS User Fees as Established Under 49 CFR 360.3

(f)

Type of Proceeding

Fee

Part I: Registration

(1)

An application for USDOT registration pursuant to 49 CFR part 390, subpart C

$300.

(2)

An application for motor carrier temporary authority to provide emergency relief in response to a national emergency or natural disaster following an emergency declaration under § 390.23 of this subchapter

$100.

(3)

Biennial update of registration

$0.

(4)

Request for change of name, address, or form of business

$0.

(5)

Request for cancellation of registration

$0.

(6)

Request for registration reinstatement

$10.

(7)

Designation of process agent

$0.

(8)

Notification of transfer of operating authority

$0.

Part II: Insurance

(9)

A service fee for insurer, surety, or self-insurer accepted certificate of insurance, surety bond, and other instrument submitted in lieu of a broker surety bond

$10 per accepted certificate, surety bond or other instrument submitted in lieu of a broker surety bond.

(10)

(i) An application for original qualification as self-insurer for bodily injury and property damage insurance (BI&PD)

$4,200.

(ii) An application for original qualification as self-insurer for cargo insurance

$420.

6. Evidence of Financial Responsibility

This final rule requires all for-hire motor carriers and private motor carriers that transport hazardous materials (HM) in interstate commerce, as well as property brokers and freight forwarders, to electronically file evidence of financial responsibility to receive USDOT registration. Existing regulations require only non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, property brokers, and household goods freight forwarders performing transfer, collection, and delivery services, to file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency, and they allow hard copy submissions. SAFETEA-LU section 4303(b) amended 49 U.S.C. 13906 to require “all persons, other than a motor private carrier, registered with the Secretary to provide transportation or service as a motor carrier” to file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency. Section 13906 also requires all property brokers and all freight forwarders performing transfer, collection, and delivery services to file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency. FMCSA interprets these statutory requirements to mandate financial responsibility filings by all for-hire motor carriers, freight forwarders, and property brokers.

The Agency also requires certain private motor carriers transporting HM in interstate commerce to file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency. These carriers are already required by statute and regulations to obtain and maintain Bodily Injury and Property Damage (BI&PD) insurance; this final rule requires the filing of evidence of such insurance with FMCSA. The Agency will be addressing the financial responsibility requirements for private non-hazardous material carriers separately from the URS final rule.

The Agency is requiring filings of evidence of financial responsibility for new applicants to be completed within 90 days of the date that an application is submitted (49 CFR 390.205(a)), or within 90 days of the date that the notice of application is published in the FMCSA Register, if a carrier is also seeking operating authority registration (49 CFR 365.109). The Agency is not providing a grace period for financial responsibility filing by existing exempt for-hire motor carriers or private motor carriers hauling HM. Such carriers must file by the compliance date of the final rule.

FMCSA is requiring insurers, surety companies, and financial institutions to convert to a web-based format when electronically filing evidence of financial responsibility (49 CFR 387.323). FMCSA currently accepts insurance filings in three formats: paper filings, electronic (ASCII) filings, and web-based filings. Web-based filings will promote efficiencies for FMCSA, insurers, sureties, financial institutions, and the public.

7. Process Agent Designations

FMCSA requires all for-hire and private motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders to designate process agents via electronic submission as a precondition for receiving USDOT registration and/or operating authority registration, when applicable (49 CFR 366.1). Current regulations require only entities that must register under 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 to designate a process agent (i.e., non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders), and the regulations permit hard copy submissions. Private motor carriers are already mandated by 49 U.S.C. 503 to designate process agents, although FMCSA has not until now promulgated a rule requiring them to do so. Although there is no statutory requirement that exempt for-hire carriers file process agent designations, the Secretary is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements for motor carriers and other entities subject to the Agency's safety oversight. Thus, FMCSA will extend the process agent designation requirement to include such carriers, as well as private carriers, to enhance the public's ability to serve legal process on responsible individuals when seeking compensation for losses resulting from a crash involving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operated by any motor carrier, regardless of the carrier's regulatory status.

The final rule also makes revisions to the Agency's designation of process agent regulations to provide greater certainty that process agent designations are accurate and that process agents are able to receive and serve on their client principals notices in court or administrative proceedings against regulated entities. Current regulations permit a carrier to fulfill its process agent designation requirements by listing an association or corporation that has filed with FMCSA a list of process agents for each State (blanket agent). To help ensure that such designations are up to date, new § 366.6(b) requires that changes to designations be reported to FMCSA within 30 days of the change. In response to public comments, the Agency has added, in § 366.6(c), a new requirement that a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder report changes in name, address, or contact information to its process agents and/or the company making a blanket designation on its behalf within 30 days of the change. Finally, the Agency has added § 366.6(d) to require process agents and blanket agents who file process agent designations on behalf of motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders to report termination of their contracts to provide process agent services for designated entities within 30 days of termination.

The Agency is requiring that new filings of designation of process agents be completed within 90 days of the date that an application is submitted, or within 90 days of the date that the notice of the application is published in the FMCSA Register if a carrier is also seeking operating authority registration under 49 CFR 365.109. An applicant is prohibited from operating until these filings are made and its USDOT Number has been activated. Existing private and exempt for-hire motor carriers will have a 180-day grace period (starting from the final rule compliance date) to file process agent designations. (49 CFR

366.2(b)). The grace period is necessary to accommodate the anticipated high volume of new filings under the URS.

8. Transfers of Operating Authority

FMCSA amends its regulations to require notification of transfers of operating authority registration. This final rule revises subpart D of title 49 CFR part 365,

Transfers of Operating Authority,

to reflect the Agency's current statutory authority over transfers of operating authority. Although FMCSA proposed to repeal this subpart, the Agency has since determined that it is in the public interest to require non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders that register under chapter 139 to notify FMCSA when these entities merge, transfer, or lease their operating rights. The Agency no longer accepts or reviews requests for transfers of operating authority. FMCSA believes, however, that it is necessary to require the reporting aspects of the regulations governing these transactions. These reporting requirements will enable the Agency to identify the parties responsible for the business operations of a for-hire motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder.

9. Impacts on State Registration Systems

This final rule allows motor carriers registering their vehicles in States that participate in the Performance and Registration Information System Management (PRISM) Program to satisfy the USDOT registration and biennial update requirements by electronically filing the required information with the State

according to its policies and procedures, provided the State has integrated the USDOT registration/update capability into its vehicle registration program (49 CFR 390.203). If State procedures do not allow a motor carrier to file the Form MCSA-1 or to submit updates within the required 24-month window, the motor carrier will need to complete such filing directly with FMCSA. The Agency plans to work collaboratively with PRISM States to implement IT specifications to ensure a seamless transition to the URS.

As used in this context, State refers to the agency in a PRISM Program State responsible for CMV registration (for example, a Department of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Administration, State Driver Licensing Agency, or Taxation and Revenue Authority).

10. Compliance Dates

The compliance date for the majority of this final rule is 26 months from the date of publication in the

Federal Register

. We have set this date to ensure sufficient time to develop URS. The Agency determined that enforcement of the biennial update requirement through the imposition of civil penalties is so important that the compliance date for this requirement (49 CFR 390.19(b)(4)) will occur as soon as possible (November 1, 2013). Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers are already required to update their registration information every 24 months under § 390.19. The Agency believes it is very important for regulated entities to update their registration information biennially. Timely updates are critical to FMCSA's compliance and enforcement program because they increase the likelihood that the Agency will be able to accurately identify, locate, and contact regulated entities to carry out its mission. The Agency, therefore, is implementing the regulatory provision stating that anyone failing to comply with the biennial update requirement is subject to civil penalties beginning November 1, 2013 rather than waiting an additional 24 months to implement this significant enforcement tool. For similar reasons, FMCSA is implementing the new enforcement provision that states the penalties for operating a CMV providing transportation in interstate commerce without a USDOT Registration and an active USDOT Number (§ 392.9b).

C. Benefits and Costs

Calculations presented in this section may be subject to rounding errors.

FMCSA classified the costs and benefits calculated in the regulatory evaluation as either changes in fees, resource costs,

or benefits. Changes in fees are neutral and will not result in a net gain (benefit) or loss (cost) from a societal perspective. For example, if FMCSA were to eliminate a fee previously paid by motor carriers, that group would receive a benefit. However, the benefit would be offset by an equal cost to the Agency in the form of lost revenues. Unlike changes in fees, changes in resource costs and benefits do result in either a cost or a benefit to society. The Agency estimated the costs and benefits associated with implementing the following major URS provisions:

Resource costs are expenditures of capital or labor incurred by the industry or Agency.

• A new requirement for private and exempt for-hire motor carriers, cargo tank facilities, and intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) to pay FMCSA registration fees;

Throughout the Regulatory Evaluation, cargo tank facilities and IEPs are referred to as “other entities.”

• A new requirement for private carriers and exempt for-hire motor carriers to acquire the services of process agents and file proof of designations with FMCSA;

• A new requirement for private HM and exempt for-hire motor carriers to file proof of liability insurance with FMCSA—these entities are already subject to the financial responsibility requirements of 49 CFR part 387;

• A reduction of the current reinstatement fee for non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders and new reinstatement fees for exempt for-hire and private HM carriers;

• Elimination of FMCSA review and approval of operating authority registration transfers, including the $300 fee, while still requiring notification of transfers of operating authority;

• Elimination of filing fees for name changes;

• Introduction of new Form MCSA-1 filing requirements; and

• Mandatory electronic filing of Form MCSA-1.

Table 3 presents the total benefits of the URS rule for each provision. For the industry, total benefits amount to $1.4 million and fee savings amount to $7.3 million over the 10-year analysis period (2014-2023). For the Agency, total benefits during this period amount to $27.4 million and an additional $65.3 million in fees received.

This rule will improve the ability of FMCSA safety investigators to locate small and medium-sized private and exempt for-hire motor carriers for enforcement action because investigators will be able to work with the newly-designated process agents to locate hard-to-find motor carriers. The Agency believes that a more efficient Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Program due to the URS Rule will lead to increased safety benefits. However, to present a conservative estimate of the benefits of the URS rule, we only estimate the benefit of time saved by the Agency due to a more efficient CSA Program.

Table 3—Total Benefits of URS Rule

[10-year present value]

URS Rule provision

Benefits

Industry

Agency

Fees received/saved

Industry

Agency

Mandatory Electronic Filing

$20,922,981

Eliminating Transfer/Name Change Requirements

2,522,258

New Applicant Fee

63,583,722

Insurance Filing

1,691,808

Process Agent Filing

3,130,736

Cancellations and Reinstatements

4,808,126

New MCSA-1 Application Form

1,354,631

3,391,089

Total Benefits

1,354,631

27,444,807

7,330,384

65,275,530

Note:

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Table 4 presents the total costs associated with the URS final rule. The URS final rule will result in an anticipated resource cost to industry of $26.4 million and a resource cost to FMCSA of approximately $135,000 over the 10-year analysis period (2014-2023).

The total societal cost of the URS final rule is thus approximately $26.5 million ($26,380,935+$135,158). The industry also will pay additional fees of $65.3 million, and the Agency will experience an average decrease in fee revenues of $7.3 million over the 10-year analysis period.

The resource cost to FMCSA for building the IT system is not included in the economic analysis.

Table 4—Total Costs of URS Rule

[10-year present value]

URS Rule provision

Resource costs

Industry

Agency

Fees paid/lost

Industry

Agency

Mandatory Electronic Filing

$538,894

Eliminating Transfer/Name Change Requirements

38,236

2,522,258

New Applicant Fee

63,583,722

Insurance Filing

676,723

1,691,808

Process Agent Filing

25,067,012

Cancellations and Reinstatements

60,070

135,158

4,808,126

New MCSA-1 Application Form

Total Costs

26,380,935

135,158

65,275,530

7,330,384

Note:

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

FMCSA calculated the net societal benefits of the URS final rule by subtracting the total (industry and Agency) 10-year costs from the total 10-year benefits for each provision. The cost to industry associated with fee changes is offset by an equal gain to FMCSA due to increased revenues from fees. Table 5 presents the net benefits of the proposed rule. Total societal net benefits of the URS final rule are estimated to be $2.3 million, negative $25.0 million for the industry (which is less than $50 per entity) and positive $27.3 million for FMCSA. The industry will pay $57.9 million more in fees (total fees paid and fees saved). This increase in fees to the industry is offset by a total $57.9 million increase in fees received by FMCSA (representing a net of fees lost and fees received). FMCSA believes the fees and costs of the URS rule will not lead to a reduction in industry competitiveness.

Table 5—Net Benefits of URS Rule

[10-year present value]

URS Rule provision

Net benefits

Industry

Agency

Net fees

Industry

Agency

Mandatory Electronic Filing

−$538,891

$20,922,981

Eliminating Transfer/Name Change Requirements

−38,236

2,522,258

−2,522,258

New Applicant Fee

−63,583,722

63,583,722

Insurance Filing

−676,723

−1,691,808

1,691,808

Process Agent Filing

−25,067,012

3,130,736

Cancellations and Reinstatements

−60,070

−135,158

4,808,126

−4,808,126

New MCSA-1 Application Form

1,354,631

3,391,089

Net Benefits

−25,026,304

27,309,648

−57,945,146

57,945,146

Societal Net Benefits

2,283,344

Note:

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

IV. Background

A. Legal Authority

FMCSA promulgates the Unified Registration System final rule in response to sec. 103 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) [Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 888, Dec. 29, 1995] and subtitle C of title IV of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1761, Aug. 10, 2005]. This rulemaking action is also consistent with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49 U.S.C. 13301, 31133(a)(8), 31134, and 31136(a).

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13908, which was enacted into law by section 103 of the ICCTA, Congress directed the Secretary in cooperation with the States, and after notice and opportunity for public comment, to issue regulations to replace four existing information systems with a single, on-line, Federal system. These Agency systems were: (1) The USDOT identification number system; (2) the since-repealed Single State Registration System (SSRS) under 49 U.S.C. 14504; (3) the registration system contained in 49 U.S.C. chapter 139; and (4) the financial responsibility information system under 49 U.S.C. 13906.

Congress also directed the Secretary, in developing this rulemaking, to consider whether to integrate the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13304 regarding service of process in court proceedings into the new system. Congress intended for the new system to serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, and identification of, all foreign and domestic motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders, and other entities required to register with the Department as well as information on safety fitness and compliance with minimum levels of financial responsibility.

The language of 49 U.S.C. 13908(c), as enacted by the ICCTA, also authorized the Secretary to “establish, under section 9701 of title 31 [of the U.S. Code], a fee system for registration and filing evidence of financial responsibility under the new system under subsection (a). Fees collected under the fee system shall cover the costs of operating and upgrading the registration system, including all personnel costs associated with the system.”

Pursuant to the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005, subtitle C of title IV of SAFETEA-LU, Congress modified some of the elements of the unified registration system required by the ICCTA. In particular, SAFETEA-LU changed the scope of the Secretary's responsibility to develop a registration system to replace the SSRS. It also modified the requirement that fees collected under the new system cover the costs of operating and upgrading the registration system and placed limitations on certain fees that the Agency could charge. Section 4304 of SAFETEA-LU reiterated the congressional requirement for a single, on-line, Federal system to replace the four individual systems identified under 49 U.S.C. 13908 and also mandated inclusion of the service of process agent systems under 49 U.S.C. 503 and 13304. SAFETEA-LU refers to the Federal online replacement system as the Unified Carrier Registration System. The Agency considers the URS announced in both the May 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the October 2011 SNPRM to be the Unified Carrier Registration System.

Under section 4305 of SAFETEA-LU (which enacted 49 U.S.C. 14504a), Congress replaced the SSRS with the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Agreement. Registration and payment of fees under the UCR Agreement are not the responsibility of FMCSA; the SSRS was, and the UCR Plan and Agreement is, administered by the participating States. However, as provided by 49 U.S.C. 13908(b), information about the compliance of entities subject to the UCR Agreement will be available through the URS when that system has been developed.

Notwithstanding the reference to 49 U.S.C. 14504 in section 4304 of SAFETEA-LU, section 4305(a) of SAFETEA-LU repealed 49 U.S.C. 14504, which governed the SSRS, effective January 1, 2007. The legislative history indicates that the purpose of the UCR Plan and Agreement is both “to replace the existing outdated system [SSRS]” for registration of interstate motor carrier entities with the States and to “ensure that States don't lose current revenues derived from SSRS” (S. Rep. 109-120, at 2 (2005)).

Today's final rule incorporates the requirements imposed by SAFETEA-LU.

The Senate bill's provisions were enacted “with modifications.” H. Conf. Rep. No. 109-203, at 1020 (2005).

Title 31 U.S.C. 9701 (the so-called “User Fee Statute”) establishes general authority for agencies to “charge for a service or thing of value provided by the Agency.” Accordingly, FMCSA is authorized to charge fees under URS that will enable the Agency to recoup costs associated with processing registration applications and administrative filings. Prior to the enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),

49 U.S.C. 13908(d) required establishment of registration fees that, as nearly as possible, cover the costs of processing the registration, provided the fees do not exceed $300. MAP-21 removed the $300 fee cap.

Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405. MAP-21 was signed into law on July 6, 2012.

Section 206 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [Pub. L. 98-554, title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1985, 49 U.S.C. App. 2505, recodified at 49 U.S.C. 31136] requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). Section 32911 of MAP-21 added a new subsection (5) to sec. 31136(a), requiring FMCSA regulations to ensure that an operator of a CMV is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of a regulation promulgated under section 31136 or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313.

Today's final rule streamlines the existing registration process and ensure

that FMCSA can more efficiently track motor carriers, freight forwarders, brokers, intermodal equipment providers and cargo tank facilities to maximize safety. It implements the mandate under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) that FMCSA's regulations ensure that CMVs are maintained and operated safely. Because the rule applies almost entirely to motor carriers and imposes no operational responsibilities on drivers, FMCSA believes that coercion of drivers to violate the rule, in contravention of section 31136(a)(5), will not occur. This regulation will not impair a driver's ability to operate vehicles safely (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)), and will not impact the physical condition of drivers (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and (4)).

Legal authority for requiring notification to the Agency of transfers of operating authority registration (and for requiring exempt for-hire motor carriers to file process agent designations) can be found at 49 U.S.C. 13301 and 31133. Under 49 U.S.C. 13301(b), the Secretary has broad authority to obtain from persons information regarding carriers and brokers the Secretary decides is necessary to carry out the Agency's commercial regulatory responsibilities, as enumerated in title 49, subtitle IV, part B. The term “carriers” includes freight forwarders (49 U.S.C. 13102(3)). In addition, 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements for motor carriers and other entities subject to the Agency's safety oversight.

B. Regulatory History

The Federal Highway Administration (FMCSA's predecessor agency) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) announcing plans to develop a single, online, Federal information system in August 1996.

The ANPRM solicited specific detailed information from the public about each of the systems to be replaced by the URS, the conceptual design of the URS, uses and users of the information to be collected, and potential costs.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System,

61 FR 43816 (Aug. 26, 1996).

On May 19, 2005, FMCSA published an NPRM describing a proposal to merge all of the prescribed information systems except the SSRS into a unified, online Federal system.

The Agency subsequently revised the May 2005 proposal in an October 26, 2011 SNPRM to incorporate new congressionally mandated provisions in SAFETEA-LU, and modified certain proposals in response to comments to the NPRM.

The SNPRM also included changes necessitated by final rules published subsequent to publication of the NPRM that directly impacted the URS. In the SNPRM, the Agency substantially altered the regulatory drafting approach proposed in the NPRM by creating a straightforward requirement for all entities to register and biennially update registration information under the new URS and by compiling a centralized cross-reference to existing safety and commercial regulations necessary for compliance with the registration requirements. The Agency abandoned previous efforts to reorganize all registration and new entrant requirements under a single part under title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) chapter III.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified Registration System,

70 FR 28990 (May 19, 2005).

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified Registration System,

76 FR 66506 (Oct. 26, 2011).

MAP-21 affects a number of rules that FMCSA is currently working on, including this one. Because MAP-21 was enacted several months after the close of the comment period for the SNPRM, the public has not had an opportunity to comment on provisions of the Act that may have an impact on the URS. Rather than delay issuance of this final rule, and to ensure an appropriate opportunity for public participation in the changes necessitated by MAP-21, the Agency will initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding(s) to address most of the needed changes. In some cases, these changes will not require rulemaking and will be addressed during the implementation phase of the URS. In other cases, minor or technical changes that involve little exercise of Agency discretion in the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions, which would not require notice and comment rulemaking, have been made to conform with MAP-21.

V. Discussion of Comments

A. Summary of Comments

FMCSA received comments to the URS SNPRM from nine respondents: American Trucking Associations (ATA),

Greyhound, Inc. (Greyhound),

the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT),

the National Automobile Dealers Association—American Truck Dealers Division (NADA-ATDD),

the National Private Truck Council (NPTC),

the National School Transportation Association (NSTA),

the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC),

the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA),

and the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA).

These entities consist of industry trade groups, a State government, and a motor carrier.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0184.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0182.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0186.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0188.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0187.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0185.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0189.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0190.

Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0183.

Respondents generally supported the concept of a unified registration system as described in the SNPRM, but some expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on Federal/State partnership initiatives such as the UCR Agreement, the PRISM Program, the CSA Program, and the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program. There were also comments about the proposed Form MCSA-1 being too lengthy and overly complicated to use. OOIDA, ATA, and MoDOT proposed extensive corrections, revisions, and enhancements to the proposed form and instructions. NTTC commented that it wished to be associated with ATA's comments.

B. Overly Complex Application Form

NPTC, ATA, and NADA-ATDD commented that the proposed MCSA-1 Form and its Instructions were overly complex. NPTC commented that the proposed MCSA-1 Form was too long and complicated for applicants to use without professional assistance. NADA-ATTD commented that the proposed form was unnecessarily long and overly complex for FMCSA to expect accurate compliance. Similarly, ATA commented that the proposed Form MCSA-1 was too lengthy, awkward, and complicated to encourage, or even permit, compliance by entities that would have to use it. However, these commenters did express support for an online application process.

Specifically, ATA commented that while it supported the requirement to file the MCSA-1 Form online, the proposed MCSA-1 was not well-suited for online filing because a longer form requires different treatment online. If the MCSA-1 Form could not be simplified, this commenter recommended that the form be split into a number of separate forms, along either functional lines or according to the type of entity required to report. NADA-ATTD strongly urged FMCSA to consider revisions to the MCSA-1 to make it more applicable to small, private motor carriers. This commenter recommended that the Agency issue another SNPRM outlining these changes before implementation of the URS. NADA-ATTD commented that FMCSA had not explained sufficiently why the substantial additions to this form were necessary, especially for small motor carriers.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency included the proposed Form MCSA-1 and Instructions in the SNPRM to illustrate the new unified application form around which the URS will be built, to disclose the complete list of registration information that the Agency will collect from the public and record in the URS, and to announce that the Agency will no longer require the individual forms associated with safety and commercial registration today. The paper Form MCSA-1 and Instructions included in the SNPRM was necessary to provide notice of and seek comment on the information FMCSA was proposing to collect and the Agency's explanation of those data fields. Form MCSA-1 is not intended to be completed in hardcopy but as an online, interactive application.

When the URS program is fully implemented, the electronic version of the Form MCSA-1 will be considerably less complex and lengthy than the paper version because URS will guide the applicant to only those portions of the MCSA-1 Form pertinent to the particular applicant's operations, thus skipping all irrelevant sections that do not apply. The application process will mimic the interactive, interview format of popular tax preparation software, and will use software similar to that used by the U.S. Department of Education in the Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA), in contrast with a static PDF fillable form. Applicants will be asked only those questions applicable to their specific operations. An applicant's answers to the initial MCSA-1 questions, including operation classification (Section A, question 15) and reason for filing (pre-Section A), will determine which sections of the MCSA-1 Form that entity will be subsequently prompted to fill. As suggested in ATA's comments, an applicant will not need to view the sections of the MCSA-1 Form that were not applicable to that entity. The Agency's goal is to eliminate as much of the guesswork as possible from the electronic registration process and to receive accurate information. As explained throughout this final rule, FMCSA received and has adopted many helpful suggestions for corrections, improvements, and clarifications to the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions. The updated MCSA-1 Form and Instructions are available in the docket FMCSA-1997-2349 for the public to view.

The online, interactive application process will particularly assist small carriers by requiring applicants to view only the portions of the MCSA-1 Form that are relevant to them, based on their answers to the first few questions. Thus, the electronic filing process will save a small carrier the needless effort of reading through portions of a form or instructions that they need not submit. Questions will display on the left side of the screen and a pop-up screen will appear on the right with instructions, as well as examples of acceptable responses.

To explain how the system will work, we will walk through a mock registration scenario for a private non-HM property motor carrier we will call “Example Private Trucking” (EPT). Since EPT is applying to operate as a private carrier, the regulations for obtaining operating authority registration under 49 CFR part 365, or filing evidence of financial responsibility under 49 CFR part 387, would not apply. To obtain a USDOT registration, EPT will be prompted to complete only 5 of the 16 sections on Form MCSA-1: Section A (Business Description); Section B (Operation Classification); Section M (Compliance Certifications); Section N (Applicant's Oath); and Section P (Filing Fee). The online URS would also prompt EPT to designate a process agent. After EPT completes the registration information and process agent designation, FMCSA would immediately issue an active USDOT Number and flag the motor carrier for participation in the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program. The biennial update will require EPT to submit even less information than the initial registration process.

C. Insufficient Technical Information

ATA expressed concern about the lack of technical details regarding the planned URS design in the SNPRM. ATA stated that because the URS is a data-processing system, the technical details of its design are of critical importance to its eventual effectiveness in accomplishing its stated purpose and functions.

In particular, ATA expressed concern about the lack of details regarding the proposal that motor carriers could fulfill their biennial registration update obligations by filing with their base States under the PRISM Program. ATA stated that this procedure would be difficult to coordinate, and commented that the SNPRM disclosed so little detail with respect to these plans that it could not assess their feasibility, or their chances for success. Therefore, this commenter recommended that FMCSA provide a clearer description of what is intended in connection with PRISM State registration in an additional SNPRM. ATA commented that the public interest in this key element of the registration function was too great for the matter to be handled by amendments to the PRISM procedures.

FMCSA Response.

With regards to system specifications, FMCSA is unable to provide these details at this time because the Agency is completing the regulatory aspects of the URS project in advance of the completion of the IT system requirements development. The Agency has published several final rules with associated IT requirements that must be scheduled to coincide with imminent regulatory compliance dates earlier than the URS compliance date. Meanwhile, each year the Agency delays finalization of the URS rule increases the possibility that new requirements and corresponding system changes could be imposed. The Agency opted to complete the URS rulemaking project separately from the associated IT development project to provide adequate notice of the new registration requirement, and set a compliance date that builds in sufficient lead time for regulatory compliance and system development. The Agency plans to work collaboratively with PRISM States to implement IT specifications to ensure a seamless transition to the URS.

D. Applicability

1. Cargo Tank Program

ATA recommended that FMCSA's cargo tank registration program be excluded from the URS, or at least not included in Form MCSA-1. To support its recommendation, ATA asserted that the cargo tank program's exclusion would help to prune the MCSA-1 Form to a more manageable size. ATA further stated that the cargo tank program is not

per se a transportation program,

and can reasonably be handled in another manner.

In its comments to the NPRM, ATA stated that the cargo tank registration program is not a motor carrier program because it applies only to persons engaged in the manufacture, assembly, inspection and testing, certification, or repair of a cargo tank. Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0168.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency believes all FMCSA-regulated entities must be subject to the URS registration requirement because section 4304 of SAFETEA-LU amended 49 U.S.C. 13908(b) to require the Federal on-line replacement system to:

“serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, and identification of, all foreign and domestic motor carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and

others required to register with the U.S. Department of Transportation,

including information with respect to a carrier's safety rating, compliance with required levels of financial responsibility, and compliance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14504a.” (Emphasis added).

As explained in the SNPRM, FMCSA interprets this statutory provision as authorizing the inclusion of all entities regulated by FMCSA in the URS.

Although the cargo tank registration program is not a motor carrier program, FMCSA believes that merging the Cargo Tank Registration Process with the URS will best further the congressional intent to create a unified system of information and registration, as expressed in the SAFETEA-LU provision quoted above.

See

76 FR 66506, 66512-66513.

Moreover, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulations at 49 CFR part 107, subpart F govern the registration procedures for persons who are engaged in the manufacture, assembly, inspection and testing, certification, or repair of a cargo tank or a cargo tank motor vehicle manufactured in accordance with a DOT specification under subchapter C of 49 CFR chapter III or under terms of a special permit issued under 49 CFR part 107.

Under § 107.502(d), PHMSA requires cargo tank facilities to complete their registration requirements with FMCSA. As previously mentioned, the electronic Form MCSA-1 will be designed so only cargo tank facility applicants would encounter the questions that apply exclusively to cargo tank registration.

See

49 CFR part 107, subpart F,

Registration of Cargo Tank and Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Assemblers, Repairers, Inspectors, Testers, and Design Certifying Engineers.

See section V.M for a discussion of FMCSA's rationale not to collect additional cargo tank information on the Form MCSA-1.

2. Certain Intrastate HM Carriers

NTTC recommended that FMCSA require all transporters of bulk HM in tank vehicles to register with the Agency using Form MCSA-1, including intrastate-only carriers. This commenter stated “that while it believed all intrastate [HM] carriers should be required to register with FMCSA,” it was limiting its request “to those carriers who transport [hazardous] materials in bulk in tank vehicles.” NTTC expressed concern that under the CSA Program, HM carriers will only be measured against other interstate carriers or intrastate carriers from States that require them to get a USDOT Number. NTTC asserted that because only 31 States require intrastate HM carriers to obtain a USDOT Number, the Safety Measurement System HM Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) may not truly measure HM carriers against their peers since it will not have information on all HM carriers.

NTTC encouraged the DOT to incorporate into its registration process a requirement whereby intrastate tank truck carriers of HM register with FMCSA. NTTC commented that if this rule is not the appropriate vehicle to require registration of intrastate tank truck carriers of HM with FMCSA, then it requested that the Department consider its comment submission to be a petition for rulemaking. NTTC commented that a “OneDOT” approach in the near term would be to require that any HM tank truck carrier applying to register with PHMSA must first be registered with FMCSA. This commenter stated that the PHMSA transporter registration program does not exclude intrastate carriers.

FMCSA Response.

Generally, the Agency does not have authority to regulate motor carriers that operate exclusively in intrastate commerce because the statutes on which most of FMCSA's commercial regulations and safety regulations are based apply primarily to transportation in interstate commerce.

The only Federal safety regulations applicable to motor carriers that operate exclusively in intrastate commerce are the commercial driver's license (CDL) requirement for drivers operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) as defined in 49 CFR 383.5; controlled substances and alcohol testing for all persons required to possess a CDL; minimum levels of financial responsibility for intrastate transportation of certain quantities of HM; applicable portions of the HM regulations in 49 CFR parts 100-180; and the requirement to obtain a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit (HMSP). As a result, the Agency will not accommodate this request at this time. The Agency, however, will accept NTTC's filing as a petition for rulemaking, and will handle the issue at a later date.

See

49 U.S.C. 31132(1) (defining “commercial motor vehicle” for purposes of safety regulation as “a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways

in interstate commerce

to transport passengers or property . . .”) (emphasis added); 49 U.S.C. 13501 (giving FMCSA general jurisdiction over transportation in interstate and foreign commerce for purposes of commercial regulation).

3. Hazardous Materials Safety Permit Applicants

The SNPRM table entitled “Entities Required to Register under the Unified Registration System” explained that an HMSP applicant was a “motor carrier that transports in interstate or intrastate commerce any of the HM, in the quantity indicated for each, listed under 49 CFR 385.403.”

NTTC recommended that FMCSA change this SNPRM table so that the entry that described HMSP applicants would read as follows: “A motor carrier that transports in interstate or intrastate commerce any of the HM, in the quantity indicated for each, listed under 49 CFR 172.101.”

See

76 FR 66506, 66514.

FMCSA Response.

FMCSA intentionally referenced the list of HM and quantities in 49 CFR 385.403, because the HMSP is not required for every hazardous material listed under 49 CFR 172.101 titled, “Table of Hazardous Materials and Special Provisions.” The HMSP is required only for the HM transported in an amount or manner listed under § 385.403.

Under 49 U.S.C. 5109(b), Congress authorized the Secretary to prescribe the types and quantities of HM which are subject to an HMSP, stipulating that the list must, at a minimum, include the four types of HMs listed in section 5109(b). The Secretary delegated responsibility for implementing section 5109 to the FMCSA Administrator.

See

49 CFR 1.87(d)(2). In 2004, FMCSA published a final rule establishing a national HMSP program for motor carriers that transport in interstate or intrastate commerce the HM listed and transported in the amount or manner prescribed in § 385.403(a)-(f).

See Final Rule, Hazardous Materials Safety Permits,

69 FR 39350 (June 30, 2004).

4. Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers

MoDOT commented that the Agency should exclude all Mexican carriers from completing Form MCSA-1, including carriers with operations

limited to the border commercial zones. This commenter asserted that it is confusing to have some of the Mexican carriers complete this form and others complete the old OP-1(MX) and MCS-150 forms.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency is adopting the approach proposed for Mexico-domiciled carriers in the SNPRM. FMCSA will subject all entities under its jurisdiction to the URS registration requirement, to the extent practicable. Applications from Mexico-domiciled long-haul carriers, however, will continue to be processed separate from the URS because the U.S.-Mexico border is open to only those carriers participating in the pilot program with distinct requirements.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) authorized the Agency to apply different standards for long-haul Mexico-domiciled carriers due to concerns about regulatory disparities between Mexico and the United States. Because the results of the pilot program are still uncertain, it would be premature to include long-haul Mexico-domiciled carriers in the URS at this time. FMCSA may include such carriers in the URS in the future, if appropriate.

See Pilot Program on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Long-Haul Trucking Provisions,

76 FR 40420 (July 8, 2011);

see generally http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/intl-programs/trucking/Trucking-Program.aspx

(last accessed Apr. 2, 2012).

FMCSA disagrees with MoDOT that all Mexico-domiciled carriers, including those confined to the border commercial zones, should be excluded from the URS based on possible confusion. Commercial zone Mexico-domiciled carriers already file different forms, and are subject to different rules, than Mexico-domiciled long-haul carriers. Including Mexico-domiciled commercial zone carriers in the URS, moreover, is consistent with the statutory mandate to include foreign carriers in the system.

5. Non-Motor Carrier Leasing Companies

MoDOT requested that the Agency provide a specific definition for the term “leasing company” and instructions for how these entities should complete Form MCSA-1. According to MoDOT, there may be instances where such companies act as a motor carrier, but in other cases they do not. When the leasing company is not a motor carrier, MoDOT commented that the company needs to know how to complete the MCSA-1 Form, which sections apply to it, and how to report or not report its number of vehicles.

FMCSA Response.

FMCSA contacted MoDOT to gain a clearer understanding of this comment and learned it is actually a request for FMCSA to require non-motor carrier leasing companies to register in URS so that States have a source through which they can identify these entities to collect UCR Agreement fees.

Therefore, the Agency regards this as an “applicability” issue rather than a form-related one.

See

Memorandum, Telephone Conversation with Barbara Hague, Missouri Department of Transportation, Motor Carrier Services, Document ID No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0178-0193; Memorandum and Contact with Missouri Department of Transportation Clarification of Issue Involving Leasing Companies, Document ID No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0192.

Under new FMCSA PRISM procedures that took effect on or about September 1, 2012, non-motor carrier leasing companies are no longer required to obtain USDOT Numbers. On August 9, 2010, FMCSA announced the elimination of “registrant-only” USDOT Numbers as part of the PRISM Program.

As stated in that notice, FMCSA originally developed the concept of a registrant-only USDOT Number to identify registered owners of CMVs that are not motor carriers, but lease their CMVs to entities that are motor carriers. FMCSA concluded, however, that registrant-only USDOT Numbers were being used differently than the Agency intended, impeding its ability to track motor carriers' safety violations.

Notice of Procedural Changes to the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management Program,

75 FR 47883 (Aug. 9, 2010).

For example, in several cases, law enforcement personnel conducting inspections and crash investigations were presented with registrant-only numbers of the leasing companies providing the vehicles instead of the USDOT Numbers of the motor carriers operating the vehicles. In these instances, the data could not be assigned to the record of a motor carrier. Motor carriers that improperly used registrant-only numbers, therefore, were evading FMCSA safety oversight, including compliance reviews and New Entrant Safety Audits. If safety events are not properly attributed to the motor carrier operating the CMVs, FMCSA cannot factor those events into the motor carriers' safety ratings and other assessments. This situation results from the misidentification of a vehicle and is a marking issue, rather than an IT or URS issue.

Accordingly, FMCSA decided to eliminate the PRISM procedure that requires non-motor carrier applicants, including leasing companies, to obtain registrant-only USDOT Numbers. PRISM Program States were directed to modify their systems, forms, instruction manuals, computer systems' validation and safety edits, renewal applications and MCS-150 edits and procedures by August 31, 2011. FMCSA planned to eliminate the practice of allowing non-motor carrier applicants to obtain registrant-only USDOT Numbers by September 1, 2011. On August 31, 2011, however, FMCSA extended the effective date for making the change to eliminate the registrant-only entry to September 1, 2012.

See Notice, Extension of Effective Date,

76 FR 54288 (Aug. 31, 2011).

Because FMCSA does not regulate non-motor carrier leasing companies, they will not be included within the URS and will not have to complete the Form MCSA-1. FMCSA will deactivate the USDOT Numbers issued to leasing companies prior to October 23, 2015. Beginning September 1, 2012, the Agency notified each entity registered as a Registrant to either deactivate its USDOT Number or change its operation type to the appropriate carrier operation. If such actions are not taken, the Agency will deactivate those USDOT Numbers.

6. School Bus Operations

The NSTA commented that, as it understood the proposed rule, school bus operations (home-to-school-to-home routes) continue to be exempt from URS. Therefore, a for-hire school bus contractor would register under URS only if the contractor also provides charter transportation, such as school activity trips. If this were the case, the NSTA commented that it believed the contractor would check the box on the proposed form in Section A, question 17a, for Charter and Special Operations. The NSTA requested clarification from FMCSA that under the sections on the Form MCSA-1 that ask for the number of vehicles and the number of drivers who will be operating in the United States, the contractor need enter only the portion of its vehicles and drivers that are used in charter operations, and not the portion that are used in school bus operations. NSTA also requested clarification as to whether Section G, question 36 (Government Funding Status) of Form MCSA-1 includes a contract between a municipality and a school bus contractor for school transportation service, if such contract includes activity transportation.

FMCSA Response.

This final rule does not in any way affect the school bus exemption. Motor carriers that provide charter transportation services under contract to schools, and that are subject to FMCSA jurisdiction, remain subject to registration requirements with regard

to the need to obtain authority to operate an interstate for-hire motor carrier, maintain minimum levels of financial responsibility and file proof of coverage, and acquire and maintain proof of designation of process. The drivers employed by these carriers are subject to FMCSA's requirements for commercial driver's licenses and the controlled substances and alcohol testing rules. Such a contractor that provides charter transportation would check the box on the MCSA-1 Form in Section A for Charter and Special Operations, which has been renumbered as question 15a. In response to the NSTA's specific questions, the contractor need enter only the portion of its vehicles and drivers that are used in interstate charter operations, and not the portion that are used solely in school bus operations, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. In compliance reviews, the Agency also does not count the number of buses used for exempt transportation.

Regarding Form MCSA-1, the question regarding Government Funding Status, which has been renumbered as question 34, does not include a contract between a municipality and a school bus contractor for school transportation service, if such contract includes activity transportation. The question is directly related to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13902. Under 49 U.S.C. 13902(b), the Agency is obligated to grant an application for regular-route operating authority filed by a private recipient of government financial assistance if the applicant can show that it is fit, willing, and able to serve the route, unless a protestant comes forward and affirmatively demonstrates that granting the application would be inconsistent with the public interest. Under 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(8)(B), the term “private recipient of government assistance” is defined as “any person (other than a public recipient of government assistance) who received governmental financial assistance in the form of a subsidy for the purchase, lease, or operation of any bus.” Based on this definition, FMCSA believes that payments made by a municipality to a for-hire school bus operator to provide non-exempt transportation of students would be considered compensation rather than a subsidy and, thus, not within the confines of section 13902(b)(8)(B). Therefore, such an applicant would not be considered a private recipient of government assistance under these circumstances, and the public interest standard would not apply.

Generally, for specific interpretations of existing regulatory requirements, any member of the public may contact the FMCSA Office of Policy or visit the FMCSA regulatory guidance Web site at

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguide.aspx?section_type=G.

E. Mandatory Electronic Filing

The SNPRM proposed the adoption of an exclusively online electronic registration system.

ATA endorsed requiring entities filing applications or updating their information with FMCSA to do so electronically. However, this commenter recommended that FMCSA establish a backup process for the mandatory electronic filing requirement, should the Agency's electronic system be temporarily unavailable for some reason, such as a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

See

76 FR 66506, 66519.

FMCSA Response.

The Federal government, including FMCSA, recognizes the need for emergency planning. FMCSA already builds in redundancies for its systems under its Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) to prevent such failures. In accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines (NIST 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for Information Technology Systems), the FMCSA IT Security Team will develop a Contingency Plan and Disaster Recovery Plan for the URS in the event that a disaster occurs to ensure the continuation of vital business processes. This plan will provide an effective solution that can be used to recover all vital business processes within the required time frame.

F. Biennial Update

FMCSA proposed to require electronic updates to Form MCSA-1 biennially.

MoDOT asked if FMCSA will automatically deactivate the USDOT Number (and revoke corresponding operating authority registration) of those entities that have not updated their MCS-150s within the 2-year requirement as of the final rule effective date. MoDOT believes that doing so would be extremely helpful in cleaning old data from the system.

See

76 FR 66506, 66594 (proposed 49 CFR 390.101(d)).

FMCSA Response.

The Agency will not automatically deactivate a USDOT Number for any entity currently registered within the system solely on the basis that it has not completed a biennial update requirement that may come due on the compliance date of the final rule. The Agency believes that such entities should first receive a warning regarding this regulatory change. Therefore, beginning November 1, 2013 (the compliance date of the revised biennial update provision), the Agency will issue a warning letter 30 days in advance of a biennial update deadline to notify the entity that its USDOT Number will be deactivated if it fails to comply with the biennial update requirement.

Only after an entity has failed to heed that warning will the Agency begin deactivating USDOT registrations for failure to update the information on Form MCSA-1 and consider imposing civil penalties. FMCSA, however, would not retroactively apply sanctions against entities that had not met the biennial update requirement by November 1, 2013.

G. Administrative Filings

1. Timeframe for Filing Changes to Name, Address

FMCSA proposed to require all entities to notify FMCSA of any changes to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1 (e.g., a change in legal name, form of business, or address) within 20 days of the precipitating change.

ATA recommended retaining the current 45-day deadline for notification of such changes. In support of its request, ATA stated that because the nature of many of these changes (e.g., a change of address, change of business name, etc.) implies a disruption in the ordinary routines of a business entity, it may be unrealistic to expect such expeditious notification. This commenter also stated that the SNPRM proposed no changes to 49 CFR 365.413, regarding the procedure for motor carrier name changes.

See

76 FR 66506, 66586 (proposed 49 CFR 365.509(a)).

FMCSA Response.

Although ATA does not provide specific regulatory references to a 45-day notification requirement, the only current regulations containing such a requirement are §§ 365.509, 368.4, and 385.609. These regulations apply to motor carriers domiciled in Mexico or outside of North America.

In response to ATA's comments and for purposes of consistency, FMCSA amends all change reporting deadlines to 30 days after the date of the change event (

see

§§ 390.201(d)(4), 365.509(a), 366.6(b), 368.4(a), 385.405(d), and 385.609(a)(2)). FMCSA has added an additional 10 days to the update requirement and believes that a 30-day requirement is reasonable and would not be more disruptive to a carrier's business than the 45-day requirement proposed by ATA.

2. Financial Responsibility for Certain FTA Grantees

The SNPRM explained that for a passenger carrier that provides transportation within a transit service area located in more than one State under an agreement with a Federal, State, or local government funded, in whole or in part, with a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, or 5311, the minimum financial responsibility requirement is the highest level of financial responsibility required for any of the States in which it operates.

FMCSA explained that this aspect of the proposal was a consequence of 49 U.S.C. 31138(e)(4), which exempts section 5307, 5310, and 5311 grantees from the Federal general financial responsibility requirements and instead subjects them to applicable State requirements.

See

76 FR 66506, 66520.

Greyhound expressed support for the proposed financial responsibility requirements for such FTA grantees, particularly the language added to the Form MCSA-1 Instructions that states that the FMCSA financial responsibility requirements “do not apply to entities providing transportation service within a transit service area under an agreement with a Federal, State, or local government funded in whole or in part with a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, or 5311.” However, Greyhound expressed concern that the proposed amendments to 49 CFR 387.33,

Financial responsibility, minimum levels,

only referred to entities that provide transportation services within a transit service area located in more than one State.

This commenter stated that it believes FMCSA's changes were intended to apply to transit operators whether they are operating in just one State or across State lines. Greyhound suggested that, because of the complexity of this issue, FMCSA should state clearly that it is using its authority under 49 U.S.C. 31138(e)(4) to authorize transit providers that operate in only one State, but participate in interline relationships with interstate carriers, to meet their FMCSA financial responsibility requirements by complying with the financial responsibility requirements of the State in which they operate. This commenter requested similar clarifying language to 49 CFR 387.33.

See

76 FR 66506, 66589 (proposed 49 CFR 387.33(b)).

FMCSA Response.

FMCSA has, at Greyhound's suggestion, added language to 49 CFR 387.33(b), as well as to 49 CFR 387.303,

Security for the protection of the public: minimum limits,

to clarify that FTA grantees providing service within a transit service area and are subject to the special insurance requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31138(e), are also subject to these requirements when they operate in a single State, but participate in providing interstate service by entering into interline agreements with interstate carriers. The instructions to Form MCSA-1 (Section K) have also been modified to incorporate this clarification, as requested by the commenter.

3. Financial Responsibility for Private HM Carriers

FMCSA proposed to require a private motor carrier hauling HM in interstate commerce to file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency.

The NPRM explained that these carriers are already required by statute (49 U.S.C. 31138 and 31139) and regulations (49 CFR part 387) to obtain and maintain public liability insurance, and that the proposed change would merely require filing of evidence of financial responsibility with FMCSA.

See

76 FR 66506, 66515, 66594 (proposed 49 CFR 390.103(a)(2)(ii)).

See

70 FR 28990, 28997.

NPTC questioned the need to require private motor carriers transporting HM in interstate commerce to file evidence of financial responsibility with FMCSA as a condition for obtaining registration and believes the Agency offered no compelling policy reason for requiring private HM carriers to now file evidence of liability coverage. NPTC stated that currently, regulations permit private HM carriers to meet financial responsibility requirements by maintaining a copy of the HM liability endorsement (Form MCS-90) at the company's principal place of business, subject to review upon reasonable demand by enforcement officials. This commenter asserted that absent evidence of lack of compliance with liability insurance requirements, it sees no need to impose a new filing mandate on private motor carriers transporting HM.

FMCSA Response.

Congress expressly authorized FMCSA to require a private motor carrier to file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency (49 U.S.C. 31139; SAFETEA-LU section 4120). At this time, the Agency has elected to require only those private motor carriers that transport HM in interstate commerce to make these filings.

FMCSA believes that the potentially greater human toll and environmental consequences of HM-involved CMV incidents make it even more important to ensure that private HM carriers under its jurisdiction can adequately cover liabilities arising from such incidents as a condition for granting registration. Further, the filing requirement for private HM carriers would assure members of the public that such carriers have the financial means to compensate them for injuries or damages caused by negligence. These filings also would increase public accessibility to insurance information and would enable FMCSA to more effectively track insurance cancellations. This new requirement for private HM carriers will not impose a significant new burden because, as explained above, these carriers are already required to maintain public liability insurance. Filing evidence of insurance coverage with FMCSA, as opposed to maintaining evidence of coverage at the place of business, will require the filing of a form with the Agency.

FMCSA believes that this nominal cost for private HM carriers is warranted to achieve the benefits noted above. As discussed in the SNPRM, there will be a 3-month moratorium on enforcement of the filing requirement after the compliance date of this final rule. The moratorium would not apply to new applicants for USDOT registration. Therefore, the Agency is establishing the financial responsibility filing requirement for private HM carriers as proposed.

See

49 CFR 387.15,

Forms.

4. Blanket Agents

FMCSA proposed to expand its existing designation of process agent requirements to private and exempt for-hire carriers.

The Agency's designation of process agent regulations (49 CFR part 366) permit a carrier to fulfill its process agent designation requirements by listing an association or corporation that has filed with FMCSA a list of process agents for each State (blanket agent) on the required Form BOC-3.

See

76 FR 66506, 66525 and 70 FR 28990, 28999.

OOIDA suggested that the designation of process agent requirements could be made more effective if motor carriers using a blanket agent are required to update the BOC-3 designation form along with the biennial update of the MCSA-1. OOIDA also noted that service of process on a motor carrier may be impeded if the motor carrier does not report address changes to the blanket agent, or if the blanket agent withdraws from offering process agent services without notice. This commenter pointed

out that 49 CFR 366.5 permits a carrier to satisfy its process agent designation requirements by listing a blanket agent on its BOC-3, and that such listing could satisfy the carrier's designation requirement indefinitely, regardless of whether any relationship is maintained between the blanket agent and the motor carrier. OOIDA commented that the regulations would not ensure that a motor carrier's process agent designations are updated and accurate unless the biennial update requirement is also expanded to include the BOC-3 Form. Further, OOIDA stated that 49 CFR 366.6,

Cancellation or change,

is silent concerning the ability of the blanket agent to cancel the designation, and only allows the motor carrier to take such action.

FMCSA Response:

The Agency has revised the final rule to accommodate this commenter's concerns. FMCSA agrees that the current service of process agent requirements should be modified to provide greater certainty that process agent designations are accurate and that process agents are able to receive and serve on their clients/principals notices in court or administrative proceedings on regulated entities. Accordingly, the Agency has revised 49 CFR 366.6 in several respects. First, in § 366.6(a), we have clarified that the process agent or blanket agent, in addition to the motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder, may cancel or change a process agent designation by filing a new designation with the Agency. To help ensure that such designations are up to date, § 366.6(b) requires that changes to designations be reported to FMCSA within 30 days of the change. This will provide more timely notice of such changes than a biennial update requirement would and are consistent with other notifications of change required by the rule.

In response to OOIDA's concern that a process agent would be unable to serve notices on a motor carrier if the carrier does not notify the agent of a change of address, the Agency has added, in § 366.6(c), a new requirement that a motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder report changes in name, address, or contact information to its process agents and/or the company making a blanket designation on its behalf within 30 days of the change.

Finally, while FMCSA does not have jurisdiction over process agents and blanket agents, they should report to the Agency when their contract or relationship with the entity they represent terminates. Motor carriers, other entities we regulate, and the public depend upon these process agents and blanket agents to keep their information current. Thus, the Agency has added new § 366.6(d), which requires process agents and/or companies to provide FMCSA with a notice of termination within 30 days of the termination. FMCSA's Office of Registration and Safety Information currently authorizes blanket agents to submit process agent designations on behalf of regulated entities. Failure to keep process agent information up to date may result in the withdrawal of Agency authorization.

Overall, the amendments to the requirements in part 366 will help ensure that the process agent designation regulations serve their purpose of assisting members of the public seeking compensation for losses involving a CMV. Accurate process agent information from all parties to the transaction enables the public to serve process in lawsuits on the correct party in any State in which a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder operates. Additionally, FMCSA uses the information to locate hard-to-find carriers for compliance interventions and to serve notices for civil penalty enforcement actions, out-of-service orders, and other administrative proceedings. Therefore, these requirements will ensure that the Agency can properly enforce its regulations against violators.

H. Potential URS Impacts on Existing Systems and Programs

A few commenters expressed concerns about potential negative impacts of URS implementation on Federal/State partnership initiatives such as the UCR Agreement, the PRISM Program, the CSA Program, and the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program. FMCSA assures stakeholders that the Agency will consult with them in planning, developing and testing the new URS information system to prevent conflicts with such programs.

1. Impacts on PRISM Program

Inconsistent Motor Carrier Registration Data

MoDOT requested that FMCSA clarify how the proposed URS information requirements will impact the PRISM Program. In particular, MoDOT commented that information concerning carrier registration is passed to the States within the States' Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVIEW) snapshot, and is used when companies plate their vehicles under the International Registration Plan (IRP). This commenter stated that inconsistent data when information is validated for the PRISM Program is confusing for the States and the industry.

FMCSA Response.

PRISM ensures that a vehicle does not receive license plates without identification of the carrier responsible for the safety of the vehicle during the registration year. By using vehicle registration sanctions, PRISM serves as a powerful incentive for unsafe carriers to improve their safety performance. CVIEW data has various purposes while PRISM data specifically targets certain vehicles and motor carriers. FMCSA believes these data programs are complementary, not inconsistent.

PRISM Program States should transition to the Form MCSA-1 and the Agency will provide training to ensure seamless implementation. PRISM grant funds may also be available to provide financial assistance. Aside from use of the new Form MCSA-1 as described in this final rule, FMCSA does not anticipate that the changes to the URS will significantly impact the operations of the State's PRISM or CVIEW program. States participating in PRISM will continue to perform PRISM functions such as issuing USDOT Numbers, mandating the update to the MCSA-1, and applying vehicle registration sanctions when appropriate.

Type of Operation Classification on the MCSA-1 Form

MoDOT expressed concerns regarding how the practice of changing a carrier's interstate operation classification to intrastate when no interstate transportation has been performed would be affected by the proposed URS requirements. This commenter explained that the FMCSA Electronic Field Operations Training Manual (eFOTM) states that if a State attempts to perform a New Entrant Safety Audit and determines that the carrier has not performed any interstate transportation, the State should not perform a New Entrant Safety Audit, but instead should change the carrier's interstate operation classification to intrastate. The eFOTM further instructs States to tell the motor carrier to go online and change its operation from “Intrastate” to “Interstate” when it begins to operate in interstate commerce.

MoDOT also requested clarification regarding proposed 49 CFR 365.110, which stated that the operating authority will not become permanent until the applicant satisfactorily completes the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program. The commenter asked what would happen to a carrier's operating authority when no interstate transportation has been performed within a designated period of time and

the States are told not to perform a safety audit (per the eFOTM procedures). MoDOT asked whether States should be permitted to deactivate the USDOT Number if no interstate activity has been performed within a designated time frame and the State does not require a USDOT Number for intrastate operations. MoDOT further asked whether States should be allowed to perform the safety audit if the carrier intends to operate in interstate commerce in order to ensure that the company is “ready” and meets all requirements for operating in interstate commerce.

FMCSA Response.

Currently, the eFOTM procedures direct a safety investigator/auditor not to conduct a safety audit if he or she learns the motor carrier has not yet begun interstate operations when the audit is being scheduled and to reclassify its interstate operation classification within the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) to intrastate. The Agency is aware of this issue and will ensure it is not carried over into the URS, which will resolve other issues raised by MoDOT regarding the intrastate/interstate operation classification. Because the issue is not caused by the URS registration requirements, it is considered beyond the scope of the final rule and will be dealt with separately. The Agency is developing and will implement policies and procedures to address this unintended consequence of changing the operation classification for New Entrant Safety Assurance Program purposes. Any changes to the eFOTM that are needed will be made as the policies and procedures are developed, independently of this final rule.

Contradiction With PRISM Program State's International Registration Plan

MoDOT expressed concern about changing any requirement within the PRISM procedures to suspend a license plate when an application for USDOT registration is rejected during FMCSA's review because this could contradict the terms of the IRP. This commenter stated that depending on the timeframe of the vehicle registration and the reporting period, applicants may be allowed to operate within two different registration periods with estimated mileage only.

FMCSA Response.

As has historically been the case, PRISM States impose vehicle registration sanctions when a motor carrier has been prohibited from operating by FMCSA, normally when an out-of-service order has been issued. An application rejected during FMCSA review, however, is not the result of an out-of-service order.

In this final rule, the applicant cannot begin operations or mark a CMV with the USDOT Number until after the date of the Agency's written notice that the USDOT Number has been activated. PRISM State vehicle registration sanctions will continue to apply only in those cases when FMCSA has issued an out-of-service order.

PRISM Program State Assistance With Electronic Filing

Given the electronic filing requirement for Form MCSA-1 under URS, MoDOT expressed concern about how it could help Missouri carriers with the new registration filing or biennial updates associated with the PRISM Program. MoDOT commented that it would not want to receive or input information from a paper application form to assist its customers in complying with the new registration requirement.

FMCSA Response.

As noted above, PRISM Program States should update their IRP to comply with the new URS registration requirement, including mandatory electronic filing. The Agency continues to believe that mandatory electronic filing is feasible and would result in cost and time savings to both applicants and FMCSA.

In 2008, an estimated 78 percent of U.S. motor carrier new applicants electronically filed their initial registrations, and this number is projected to steadily increase to 88 percent by 2016.

Furthermore, the Internet is publicly accessible via libraries and other public facilities. FMCSA recognizes that this change could impose a burden on entities that do not have readily accessible means to file electronically or that do not wish to file electronically, and has estimated these costs in detail in the Regulatory Evaluation.

In future years, the FMCSA estimates that only 12 percent of applicants would be expected to still file by paper, if that option were available. The estimated cost savings of a mandatory electronic filing requirement that would accrue to other carriers and to the Agency is much greater than the costs to those carriers that would choose to continue to file by paper; mandatory electronic filing, therefore, is a cost effective requirement. The Agency sought, but did not receive comment on the SNPRM's Regulatory Evaluation's estimate of the impact of mandatory electronic filing.

See

section 3.2 of the Final Regulatory Evaluation of the Unified Registration System, which is available in the docket, for a discussion of the costs and benefits of the mandatory electronic filing.

See

Appendix A of the Final Regulatory Evaluation of the Unified Registration System, which is available in the docket.

Id.

2. Impacts on UCR Agreement

The SNPRM explained that Congress established the UCR Plan and Agreement to replace the SSRS for registration of interstate motor carriers with the States, and to ensure that States did not lose revenues derived from the SSRS.

The UCR Plan and Agreement established fee schedules under which States collect fees from carriers based on the number of qualifying CMVs in their fleets.

See

76 FR 66506, 66507.

MoDOT pointed out unintended impacts of MCMIS and PRISM on the UCR Agreement and urged the Agency to address them within the URS final rule. For example, information on the Form MCS-150 is used to determine fees paid to the States under the UCR Agreement. MoDOT requested that FMCSA ensure that replacing Form MCS-150 with Form MCSA-1 would not jeopardize such fee determination.

OOIDA identified an existing problem that could inappropriately create a liability to pay UCR fees for a year when a carrier was not operating. Specifically, this commenter stated that when a carrier attempts to provide the data needed to reactivate suspended or inactive authority, the current system will not allow the numerical value of “0” (zero) miles to be inputted for the previous year even where there has been no activity. The carrier must input a value of “1” mile in order for the system to accept the application. Having to make any mileage declaration could create a liability to pay UCR fees for a year where there was no operation. OOIDA recommended allowing carriers to enter zero miles in the data field to resolve the issue.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency has revised Form MCSA-1 to ensure that replacing Form MCS-150 with Form MCSA-1 will not jeopardize fee determination under the UCR Agreement. A Federal statute, 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3), allows States to use the Form MCS-150 as a source of information about the number of vehicles in a motor carrier's fleet for purposes of determining a carrier's fees under the UCR Agreement. The number of CMVs owned or operated for the purpose of determining the level of fees charged for registering with the UCR Plan is either “the number of commercial motor vehicles the [carrier] or freight forwarder has indicated it operates on its most recently filed MCS-150 or the total number of such vehicles it owned or operated for the 12-month

period ending on June 30 of the year immediately prior to the registration year of the Unified Carrier Registration System.”

The new Form MCSA-1 is the functional equivalent of the MCS-150. FMCSA construes the reference at the end of the statutory quote above to the “Unified Carrier Registration System” as the UCR Agreement because the Unified Carrier Registration System (which FMCSA calls the URS) does not have a registration year.

Id.

The Agency has revised Form MCSA-1 to collect information about the number of vehicles in an applicant's fleet that are used solely in intrastate commerce.

See

Form MCSA-1, Section B, question 22(d). This revision is in response to comments from MoDOT about disparities in data reported by motor carriers during UCR Agreement and FMCSA registrations with regard to fleet size and suggestions for improving the ability to reconcile these inconsistencies. FMCSA believes this change will improve the ability to determine fees for the UCR Agreement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3). This new entry will not increase the information collection burden on applicants because they are able to estimate with reasonable accuracy the number of vehicles operating in interstate and intrastate commerce, respectively.

With respect to the mileage issue, the Agency is modifying its systems to accept a value of “0” (zero) in the mileage field and to require motor carriers to report vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data for the previous 12 months rather than for the previous calendar year. The MCSA-1 Instructions (question 21) have been modified accordingly. These changes are being implemented outside of this rulemaking process.

I. Transfers of Operating Authority and Concerns About Reincarnated Carriers

In the SNPRM, the Agency proposed to eliminate 49 CFR part 365, subpart D, governing transfers of operating authority.

FMCSA reasoned that ICCTA removed the Agency's statutory authority to approve transfers of authority and did not prohibit such transfers.

See

76 FR 66506, 66519.

TIA expressed support for the proposed elimination of 49 CFR part 365, subpart D. However, TIA cautioned against simplifying the application and registration process to the point it would increase reincarnated carriers. TIA commented that FMCSA must be careful to establish the application and registration process in a way that will address certain abuses that have arisen under the current system, and that retains adequate protections for the shipping public. TIA requested that the Agency continue to allow MC Numbers to reflect a broker's business history. To prevent churning of operating authorities by unscrupulous or fraudulent operators, TIA encouraged FMCSA to take steps to conduct a thorough review of repeat applications by carriers or brokers filed within the same year to create an active database of companies. This commenter suggested that the Agency link the URS or other registration requirement with operating authority. Finally, to further prevent churning and confusion in the marketplace, TIA suggested that FMCSA prohibit the sale of authority numbers outside the sale of the company.

FMCSA Response.

The ICCTA repealed 49 U.S.C. 10926, which gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) specific authority to review and approve transfers of operating authority which historically was assigned to non-exempt and for-hire motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders. However, FMCSA has never allowed and will continue to disallow transfers of USDOT numbers which have been issued for safety-related registration and now will become the unique identifier for FMCSA-regulated entities. The commenter, however, brought up legitimate concerns about potential carrier safety record-related impacts of the URS combining commercial operating authority and safety registration under the same USDOT Number.

Although ICCTA removed the Agency's authority under former 49 U.S.C. 10926 to approve transfers of authority, it did not prohibit FMCSA from requiring notice of transfers. The Agency's statutory authority permits it to obtain information from carriers and brokers, and from the employees of such entities, that FMCSA decides is necessary to carry out its regulatory responsibilities.

49 U.S.C. 13301(b).

This rule will result in the development of a registration system that combines information associated with the Agency's safety and commercial registration systems in a way that does not exist today. FMCSA believes that combining these separate Agency information systems into the URS will improve the Agency's ability to detect and prevent unscrupulous motor carriers that reinvent themselves to avoid compliance with regulations and enforcement actions. The Agency believes it can identify these reincarnated carriers despite discontinuing issuance of the MC Numbers because a motor carrier's safety history is associated with its USDOT Number, not its MC Number. All for-hire motor carriers that have MC Numbers and are subject to the Agency's safety jurisdiction also have USDOT Numbers.

Today, the Agency uses several screening algorithms to identify potential reincarnated carriers, which will continue under the URS. For example, the Agency already has implemented a New Applicant Screening (NAS) Process. The Agency currently uses the NAS to provide additional scrutiny to all applications involving passenger carrier and household goods (HHG) authority. However, without a transfer notification requirement, this and other protections discussed in the SNPRM may be insufficient to quickly identify reincarnated carriers. Absent a notification requirement, a carrier's operating authority could change hands through the sale of a company, and the safety history of the transferor company could be lost if the transferee company already has its own USDOT Number that it will continue to use with its newly acquired operating authority. This would result in a loophole that would allow a carrier to avoid a bad safety history by obtaining a new USDOT Number and shedding its old USDOT Number and poor safety history.

In response to the concerns expressed by TIA, therefore, the Agency has decided to require, in new § 390.201(d)(5), that a person who obtains operating authority through a transfer, as defined in part 365, subpart D, notify FMCSA of the transfer within 30 days of consummation of the transaction by filing either an updated Form MCSA-1 or a new Form MCSA-1, if the transferee did not have an existing USDOT Number at the time of transfer. Section 390.201(d)(5) also requires the transferor to file an updated Form MCSA-1 to notify FMCSA of the transfer, which will allow the Agency to maintain accurate records of entities' operating authorities. When providing the transfer of operating authority information on an updated Form MCSA-1, a transferee or transferor would check “Notification of Transfer of Operating Authority (Both Transferor and Transferee)” as the reason for filing, and the information that the online Form MCSA-1 will require is the name, address, phone number, and USDOT Numbers of the transferor and transferee. They will also need to scan

and provide an electronic copy of the operating authority being transferred.

The information provided with a notification of transfer of authority will ensure that the Agency's IT systems are up to date and that the safety history associated with a carrier's operating authority and its associated USDOT Number remains connected with that operating authority, regardless of any changes in the entities that own that operating authority. FMCSA is also revising part 365, subpart D, to specify the procedures for motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders to report to FMCSA transactions that result in the transfer of operating authority. Section 365.403(a) defines transfer as “any transaction in which an operating authority issued to one person is taken over by another person or persons who assume legal responsibility for the operations. Such transactions include a purchase of all or some of the assets of a company, a merger of two or more companies, or acquisition of controlling interest in a company through a purchase of company stock.” Section 365.403(c) defines person as an “individual, partnership, corporation, company, association, or other form of business, or a trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative of any of these entities.” Finally, § 365.405 references § 390.201(d)(5) and specifies that both the transferor and the transferee must supply the full name, address, and USDOT Numbers of the transferor and transferee (if the transferee has a USDOT Number), as well as a copy of the operating authority being transferred.

The Form MCSA-1 and Instructions have been revised to accommodate a filing for purposes of notification of transfer of operating authority (

see

section O). In particular, the Agency has added an additional reason for filing: “Notification of Transfer of Operating Authority (Transferor or Transferee),” which will have no associated fee. If a person filing the Form MCSA-1 checks this reason, the user will be directed to Section O (Notification of Transfer of Operating Authority). The applicant will first be asked whether it is a transferor or a transferee. If the applicant is a transferee, the applicant will be prompted to confirm whether or not it has a USDOT Number. If the transferee does not yet have a USDOT Number, the applicant will be re-directed to Section A, and the applicant will be required to fill out all applicable sections of the Form MCSA-1 as a new applicant.

If the transferee has an existing USDOT Number, and in all cases for the transferor filing the MCSA-1 for purposes of notification of transfer of operating authority, Section O will prompt the applicant to enter the name, address, contact information, and USDOT Number for both the transferor and the transferee. As it does with all new applicants for a USDOT Number, the Agency will determine whether the transferee is willing and able to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, and will ensure that the transferee has satisfied all applicable administrative filing requirements, before activating the transferee's USDOT Number. The Form MCSA-1 Instructions have been revised to explain the new reason for filing and to direct transferors and transferees on how to enter data in Section O.

J. Reinstatement of Operating Authority

Related to issues of churning operating authority by reincarnated carriers, TIA also urged FMCSA to prohibit the practice of reinstating authority numbers that have been inactive for more than 12 months. This commenter cited data from Internet Truckstop that 22 percent of reinstated MC Numbers were not reinstated by the original owner (i.e., that they had been purchased by a different company). TIA stated that any change in ownership usually flags a change in the company's methods of operation and business practices, quoting an Internet Truckstop report. For these reasons, TIA recommended that entities should be prohibited from purchasing and reinstating a retired MC Number, unless someone purchases the entire company. TIA urged FMCSA to completely retire MC Numbers and USDOT Numbers that have been out of service for more than 12 months.

FMCSA Response.

As was stated in the SNPRM, FMCSA no longer has authority under former 49 U.S.C. 10926 to approve transfers of operating authority. However, the final rule requires motor carriers and other regulated entities to notify FMCSA of any transactions that may directly or indirectly result in the transfer of operating authority (

see

section V.I). This notification requirement will help FMCSA keep track of possible churning of operating authority registrations by unsafe carriers. Operating authority or a USDOT Number may become inactive for legitimate business reasons. For example, a small carrier may decide to lease its vehicles and drivers to another authorized carrier for a period of time rather than operate under its own MC or USDOT Number because it may be economically beneficial to do so. Or, a carrier that may have decided to operate solely in intrastate commerce may subsequently resume operations as an interstate carrier. FMCSA believes that adopting TIA's proposal to permanently “retire” MC and USDOT Numbers that have been inactive for more than 12 months, thus requiring carriers to apply for new numbers and re-enter the new entrant program, would be unduly burdensome for carriers that have legitimate reasons for temporary deactivation.

K. Unauthorized Re-Brokering of Freight

The SNPRM proposed that URS apply to property brokers because section 4302 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Federal on-line replacement system to “serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, and identification of, all foreign and domestic carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and others required to register with the Department of Transportation . . .”

TIA asked FMCSA to issue separate operating authority numbers to entities operating as both motor carriers and property brokers so that the Agency could prevent unauthorized re-brokering of freight, and to enable shippers to know which type of entity they are dealing with at the time of arranging for the transportation of cargo. This commenter asserted that many motor carriers currently operate under the misperception that registering as a motor carrier entitles them to broker freight to other motor carriers when they cannot handle it themselves.

49 U.S.C. 13908(b);

see

76 FR 66506, 66512.

TIA commented that the unauthorized re-brokering of freight has led to many commercial problems for its member brokers. Further, TIA stated that when undisclosed re-brokering of freight occurs, carriers with poor safety histories—often those that would have never been chosen by the shipper or broker—can remain in business and circumvent the safeguards intended to discourage the use of unsafe carriers. Thus, TIA reasoned that unauthorized re-brokering of freight by motor carriers also frustrates the efforts of government and the industry to promote the use of safe carriers.

TIA commented that the proposed URS and Form MCSA-1 would perpetuate the confusion caused by the current FMCSA registration system (inherited from the ICC) by permitting an entity to use a single registration process to apply for authority as both a carrier and broker, and by using a single USDOT Number to cover them both. This commenter asserted that this characteristic of the registration system makes it impossible for the party

tendering the cargo to be sure which operating authority the carrier is choosing to exercise. Therefore, TIA urged FMCSA to require separate applications for motor carrier, broker, and freight forwarder authority, and to assign different USDOT Numbers for motor carrier and broker authority, even when they are held by the same entity.

FMCSA Response.

A “broker” is a party who, for compensation, arranges, or offers to arrange the transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier.

When shipments are transported by motor carriers, both the carrier and the shipper may use brokers as agents in connection with the movement of goods. Currently, entities may hold authority to operate as both a motor carrier and a broker, either under their own name or through affiliated companies.

49 U.S.C. 13102(2).

Prior to enactment of MAP-21, separate broker authority was not necessarily required for motor carriers to lawfully tender freight to other motor carriers for transportation, provided the motor carrier arranged for the transportation of shipments which they are authorized to transport and which they have accepted and legally bound themselves to transport.

Section 32915 of MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 13902 to prohibit a motor carrier from providing broker services unless it first registers as a broker under 49 U.S.C. 13904.

49 CFR 371.2(a).

Section 32914 of MAP-21 also amended 49 U.S.C. 13901 to require distinctive USDOT Numbers for each type of authority issued. For example, an entity applying for both broker and motor carrier authority would receive a different USDOT Number for each type of authority. This MAP-21 provision also requires that the USDOT Number include an “indicator” of the type of authority issued. FMCSA will address these MAP-21 requirements in a separate rulemaking, at a later date.

L. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance

Greyhound stated that FMCSA continues to refuse to make compliance with the ADA an issue to be considered before registering motor carriers of passengers. Greyhound commented that enactment of the Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007 (OTRB Act), Public Law 110-291, requires FMCSA to assess an applicant's willingness and ability to comply with DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37, subpart H in the same way the Agency considers the applicant's ability to comply with other applicable regulations, such as those pertaining to safety and financial responsibility. Greyhound commented that FMCSA must gather sufficient information to make the basic ADA fitness determination.

Greyhound also requested that FMCSA modify the equipment list requirements on page 6 of the proposed Form MCSA-1 to ensure that all fixed-route operators comply with requirements regarding lift-equipped vehicles or provision of equivalent service, as applicable. Greyhound also urged that New Entrant Safety Audits be expanded to include questions regarding compliance with lift-equipped vehicle requirements for both demand responsive and fixed-route passenger carriers.

FMCSA Response.

Although the OTRB Act required FMCSA to consider an applicant's willingness and ability to comply with DOT's ADA regulations in determining whether to grant its application for operating authority, it did not mandate a particular means of doing so. Section G of Form MCSA-1 requires passenger carrier applicants to certify that they are “fit, willing, and able to comply with all pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation's Americans with Disabilities Act regulations for over-the-road bus companies located at 49 CFR part 37, subpart H, if applicable.” After explaining differences in terminology between the part 37 regulations and FMCSA regulations, the Form directs the applicant to the Agency's Web site for a general overview of the Department's ADA regulations. This certification is more specific than the certification in Section M of Form MCSA-1, in which all applicants must certify that they are willing and able to comply “with all pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements and regulations issued or administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, including operational regulations, safety fitness requirements, motor vehicle safety standards and minimum financial responsibility, and designation of process agent requirements.” Thus, at the application stage, the Agency will assess an applicant's willingness and ability to comply with ADA requirements through self-certification. If a member of the public or a potential competitor has evidence that an applicant is not willing and able to comply with DOT's ADA regulations, they may raise this issue in a protest to the application filed in accordance with 49 CFR part 365, subpart B.

Regarding the modification of the equipment list requirements, FMCSA believes that the certification in Section G of Form MCSA-1 complies with the OTRB Act and that it is unnecessary to require applicants to include detailed ADA compliance information on the application form. FMCSA indicated in the SNPRM that it would verify ADA compliance during the New Entrant Safety Audit stage. New Entrant Safety Audits are generally conducted within 9 months after a new entrant for-hire passenger carrier is issued operating authority registration and in the future will be conducted within 120 days as required by MAP-21. At this time, the Agency will probe into the carrier's ADA compliance. Although it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, the Agency will consider augmenting the New Entrant Safety Audit to include verifying compliance by both fixed-route and demand responsive passenger carriers with the fleet standards and/or equivalent service standard contained in 49 CFR 37.183 and 185.

If noncompliance with DOT's ADA regulations is discovered in the course of the safety audit or a Compliance Review, FMCSA will, in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), either forward the information to DOJ for appropriate action or conduct its own investigation and attempt to resolve the violations. We believe that these procedures are sufficient to meet the Agency's obligations under the OTRB Act.

M. Other Suggested Revisions to MCSA-1 Form and Instructions

OOIDA, ATA, NTTC and MoDOT proposed extensive corrections, revisions and enhancements to the proposed form and instructions. In this section, the Agency discusses comments on the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions not otherwise addressed above. FMCSA has made corrections to the typographical errors that commenters pointed out.

General

Applicants Accustomed to MCS-150 Terms and Instructions

ATA commented that where an existing form, such as the MCS-150, has been in use for years, and those filing it have become accustomed to the form and its instructions, it may be advisable, whenever possible, to continue to use the same language as the existing form, and the same instructions.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency acknowledges that some of the terms used in Form MCSA-1 are new and unfamiliar to entities that do not require operating authority. However, these

entities will need to provide only information pertinent to their specific operations. FMCSA will strive to make the online system and instructions as clear as possible when designing and implementing the new system, and will provide examples to clarify registration processes whenever feasible.

Use of the Word “Applicant”

ATA commented that although the MCSA-1 Form is a multi-purpose form, throughout the form and instructions the filer is referred to as the “applicant,” although only a minority, perhaps a small minority, of filers would be applicants for operating authority registration. ATA commented that the result would be confusion for those other than applicants, as such entities would be uncertain as to what parts of Form MCSA-1 apply to them. This commenter recommended that the Form MCSA-1 and Instructions use a more general, neutral term, such as “filer.”

FMCSA Response.

The Agency disagrees and is retaining the use of the word applicant in Form MCSA-1 and the Instructions. Under the URS, every entity under FMCSA jurisdiction is considered an applicant for registration, not just those requesting operating authority. We recognize, however, that some existing entities will also file changes to their name, address, form of business, and/or updates to their registration information on the Form MCSA-1, but they too will be considered as “applicants” requesting a change or update in their registration data. Because the Agency wants to ensure that the information entered on Form MCSA-1 pertains to the entity seeking registration or other appropriate actions and not a third-party filing company, FMCSA believes the use of a more general term (such as “filer”) would be inappropriate. All entities must indicate their “Reasons to File” the Form MCSA-1. Because the Form MCSA-1 is electronic, entities will be directed to the appropriate sections that need to be completed once they indicate their reason for filing. This aspect of the URS will eliminate any uncertainty as to what parts of Form MCSA-1 apply to entities filing the form. Accordingly, the Agency will use the term “applicant,” rather than filer, throughout the URS rule, the Form MCSA-1, and the Instructions. In addition, sec. 32105 of MAP-21, which adds new section 31134 to Title 49, U.S. Code, requires persons subject to the Agency's safety jurisdiction to submit an “application” to receive a USDOT Number. The universe of “applicants” is therefore not limited to persons seeking operating authority registration.

References to Federal Statutes or Regulations

ATA pointed out that on the first page of the proposed Instructions for Form MCSA-1, in the line immediately above the bullet points, a reference is made to “interstate commerce as defined in 49 CFR 390.5.” The commenter asserted that this sort of technical reference would not be encouraging to unsophisticated applicants as they begin to engage with this already intimidating form. Further, ATA commented that if applicants do read the referenced regulation, they may be misled again, to believe that interstate commerce only includes movements by vehicles that cross state lines. This commenter stated that, in general, references to Federal statutes or regulations will rarely be helpful.

FMCSA Response.

Generally, the Agency cites Federal regulations and statutes in the Form MCSA-1 and Instructions because cross referencing these sources is more efficient than spelling out definitions and requirements throughout these documents and the statutes and regulations provide the basis for applicable registration requirements. Inserting language from the statutes or regulations would require changes to the MCSA-1 Form and/or Instructions whenever modifications were made to the statutory or regulatory language. However, in the interest of making the instructions easier to understand, the Agency has included additional clarifications wherever feasible.

NTSB Recommendation H-11-1: Collecting Additional Cargo Tank Information

As noted in the SNPRM, in 2009 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as part of its accident report concerning a 2009 crash involving a cargo tank vehicle, recommended that FMCSA revise the MCS-150 Form to require HM carriers to report the number of types of USDOT specification cargo tanks (i.e., cargo tank vehicles designed and self-certified by the vehicle manufacturer as meeting the applicable PHMSA standards for use in transporting HM) owned or leased by the carriers and provide other pertinent data displayed on the specification plates of such tanks (Recommendation H-11-1).

NTSB recommended that FMCSA require this information to be updated annually. In the SNPRM, the Agency sought comments on this NTSB recommendation.

NTTC quoted this NTSB recommendation, noting that NTSB recommended that data be collected from all intrastate and interstate carriers. No other commenter addressed NTSB Recommendation H-11-1.

See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/HAR1101.html

(last accessed July 30, 2012).

See

76 FR 66506, 66522.

FMCSA Response.

The FMCSA acknowledges the intent of the NTSB recommendation but the Agency has opted not to include a requirement in the URS final rule for the collection of the cargo tank vehicle information recommended by the NTSB. Based on FMCSA's experience working with PHMSA and the cargo tank industry to address safety issues, and our understanding of the role of crash investigations or inquiries in identifying likely causes or contributing factors of crashes and HM incidents, the Agency does not need the cargo tank vehicle data in question.

First, the fact that a specification cargo tank vehicle was involved in a recordable crash would not in and of itself trigger a need for industry-wide tank vehicle data. In the absence of a crash or incident involving the unintended release of HM, and a subsequent investigation of the cause of the release of the material, the industry-wide data would serve only as a census of cargo tank vehicles used to transport HM. This census would not cover tank vehicles used to transport other materials even though such vehicles would be susceptible to crashes. FMCSA would know the total number of specification tank vehicles in use but there would be little if any analytical value concerning the risks of future crashes. FMCSA notes that through its existing motor carrier reporting requirements, which are continued through this rulemaking, the Agency has access to information on the identity of interstate motor carriers transporting HM in quantities requiring placards, which includes the interstate carriers operating specification cargo tank vehicles that are the subject of the NTSB's interest.

Second, if there is a crash or incident involving the unintentional release of HM and the investigation or inquiry suggests that a design, fabrication, or maintenance issue may have contributed to the release of the HM, FMCSA and PHMSA already have the tools needed to effectively address the issue(s) without imposing a new information collection burden on the transportation industry. If there is a concern that a cargo tank vehicle from a specific manufacturer may not comply with PHMSA's standards, the

subsequent investigation would determine whether the problem is with the fabrication and/or maintenance of the specific tank vehicle involved in the crash or incident; involves multiple cargo tank vehicles produced by the same manufacturer; involves multiple cargo tanks serviced by the same repair facility; involves multiple cargo tanks operated by the same carrier; or, involves multiple manufacturers' cargo tanks in the specification series. The Department does not need the information collection for these scenarios to address the issue because FMCSA and PHMSA would work with the cargo tank manufacturers and repair facilities to take appropriate actions to resolve the safety concerns. FMCSA and PHMSA would work with the manufacturers and repair facilities involved to gather up-to-date information on how many specification tank vehicles had been sold or serviced and which customers were operating those vehicles.

In the event the investigation suggests flaws with one or more manufacturers' specification tank vehicle series, the agencies would work together to inform the cargo tank industry (manufacturers, registered repair facilities, and carriers) and the enforcement community of the problem and what actions should be taken to address the problem. For example, FMCSA could issue a safety bulletin or alert, or publish a

Federal Register

notice announcing the discovery of the non-compliant tanks. The Agency has taken a similar action in the past to alert carriers to safety problems and to direct them to immediately discontinue use of the unsafe cargo tanks until repairs and recertification were completed.

And, if necessary, the agencies would work together to determine what regulatory actions may need to be considered to provide a long-term solution. As with the previous scenarios, the NTSB's recommended information collection burden would not have provided any practical information useful in addressing the problem.

If there is a problem with the actual regulatory standard for a specification series, i.e., the manufacturers' tank designs conform to the PHMSA standards in effect on the date of manufacture but the standards for that series need to be upgraded, the collection of data does not help FMCSA and PHMSA because the agencies do not have a practical means with which to address such problems short of conducting a rulemaking to require or prohibit certain actions by manufacturers, repair facilities, and carriers. At the point the agencies consider a rulemaking, FMCSA and PHMSA could query the vehicle manufacturers to obtain cargo tank vehicle data needed to support the preparation of rulemaking documents. The information collection burden recommended by the NTSB would therefore be unnecessary.

For the reasons given above, the Agency excludes from the final rule the collection of cargo tank data from motor carriers. The Agency will formally notify the NTSB in writing to request closure of the recommendation. NTTC's specific comment relating to URS applicability to intrastate HM carriers was addressed in section V.D.2.

Other Comments About the MCSA-1 Form

Section A, MC, MX, and FF Number(s)

MoDOT recommended that proposed question 10, in Section A of Form MCSA-1 should be deleted if all entities registered under the URS are to be identified solely by the USDOT Number. Proposed question 10 required the applicant to list MC, MX, and FF Number(s) (if updating).

FMCSA Response.

The Agency agrees with MoDOT and has removed question 10 from Form MCSA-1 because regulated entities will be identified solely by USDOT Number. However, applicants must disclose MC, MX and FF Numbers concerning business relationships and affiliations with other entities registered with FMCSA (or its predecessor agencies) in response to question 43 of Form MCSA-1 because the Agency will use the information to deter reincarnated carriers as discussed in this section under “Section K, Disclosure of Relationships with other FMCSA-regulated Entities.”

Section A, Form of Business

Proposed question 13 (Form of Business) in Section A asked an applicant to indicate its form of business by checking all of the following that apply: Sole Proprietor, Partnership, Limited Liability Company, Corporation, or Unit of State or Local Government. MoDOT recommended that FMCSA change the instruction for a Sole Proprietor. MoDOT commented that under the IRS definition, “[a] sole proprietor is someone who runs an unincorporated business by himself or herself.” The proposed instructions read “Sole Proprietor—Individuals who operate a business in their own name.” MoDOT stated that this gives the impression that more than one individual could be included as a sole proprietor. Therefore, this commenter recommended that the instruction be changed to read: “Sole Proprietor—An individual who operates a business in his or her own legal name.”

MoDOT further recommended that question 13 include “Limited Liability Partnerships and Trusts” as an option to check for form of business. ATA questioned why question 13 (Form of Business) instructs the applicant to “select all that apply.” This commenter asked how more than one could apply.

FMCSA Response.

In response to MoDOT's request, the Agency added the requested business forms, “Limited Liability Partnerships” and “Trusts,” as well as a data field marked “Other” for question 12 (formerly question 13). The instructions to question 12 include definitions for “Limited Liability Partnership” and “Trust” and instruct the applicant to use the data field marked “Other” to indicate any business forms not listed on the application. The term “

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)”

is defined as a “partnership in which some or all partners (depending on the jurisdiction) have limited liability. In an LLP, no partner is responsible or liable (directly or indirectly) for an obligation of the partnership due to another partner's misconduct or negligence, thus shielding innocent members of these partnerships from liability.”

The term “

Trust”

is defined as a “relationship whereby property (real or personal, tangible or intangible) is transferred by one party (settlor) to be held by another party (trustee) for the benefit of a third party or parties (beneficiary(ies)). In effect, a trust is a legal device designed to provide financial assistance or something of value to someone without giving the person total control over the trust assets. It may be revocable or irrevocable, express or implied. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries (the beneficial owners of the trust property) and is obligated to administer the trust in accordance with both the terms of the trust and the governing law.”

Additionally, the Agency has revised the definition of “

sole proprietor”

in the Form MCSA-1 Instructions to read: “An individual who owns and operates a business normally in his or her legal name and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business. In some jurisdictions the proprietor can use a trade name or business name other than his or her legal name, but the individual is also required to file a `doing business as (dba)' statement with local authorities. Every asset of the business is owned by the proprietor and all debts of the business are his or hers as well.”

Regarding the direction that applicants “select all that apply,” we agree with ATA that only one form of business or company structure should apply here. Because the form of business or company structure may vary, each legal entity should have its own USDOT Number identifier. Accordingly, we have replaced the phrase “select all that apply” on question 12 of the MCSA-1 Form with “select the one business form that applies.”

Section A, Gross Annual Revenue

ATA commented that on page 8 of the proposed MCSA-1 Instructions, and on page 3 of the proposed MCSA-1 Form, the applicant is to enter its “gross annual revenue” (proposed Form MCSA-1 question 16). This commenter stated that this is a new requirement not proposed in the NPRM. ATA questioned what purpose such a requirement could serve. ATA stated that private motor carriers are, by definition, engaged primarily in businesses other than transportation, and many motor carriers operate ancillary businesses as well. Further, ATA commented that many businesses rightly regard gross revenue data as proprietary. ATA asserted that a requirement to provide gross annual revenue is unwarranted without a full explanation of a valid regulatory purpose, which FMCSA has not provided. This commenter recommended that the MCSA-1 Form remove the requirement to enter this information.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency has revised the Form MCSA-1 and Instructions to no longer require information about an applicant's “gross annual revenue.” FMCSA, however, may revisit this issue in the future.

Section B, Mileage

MoDOT requested that FMCSA clarify the instruction for proposed question 23 (Mileage) to make clear who reports the mileage of vehicles owned by the applicant but leased by the applicant to another carrier, versus vehicles leased by the applicant from others to use in the applicant's business. The proposed instruction read: “Estimate the miles traveled by applicant's [CMVs] during the last calendar year. It makes no difference if the CMVs were leased by the applicant or owned by the applicant. . . .” MoDOT commented that this proposed instruction appears to cover all the vehicles owned by the applicant, whether or not used by the applicant.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency agrees with MoDOT that the proposed question 23 instruction (question 21 instruction in the final rule) should be clarified to require reporting the mileage of all CMVs used in the applicant's operations. The question 21 instruction has been revised to read:

Enter the total mileage of all [CMVs] to the nearest 10,000 miles operated by the applicant for the previous 12 months (whether leased or owned). If the applicant has been in operation for less than 12 months, enter mileage operated to date. If the applicant has not operated within the last 12 months, enter the number “0.”

The Agency has also similarly modified question 21 on the MCSA-1 Form. FMCSA has also eliminated the “Calendar Year” entry field from the MCSA-1 Form because the Agency has decided to request carrier mileage operated in the previous 12 months.

Section B, Number of Vehicles

MoDOT requested that FMCSA add further information to the Form MCSA-1 Instructions for question 24(a), which requires applicants to list the number of vehicles with weights greater than or equal to 10,001 pounds that it will operate in the United States. This commenter requested that the Agency make the instruction absolutely clear what vehicles are to be counted and included in this section. For a motor carrier that owns and leases some of its vehicles to other motor carriers, MoDOT asked whether the owner or the lessee is responsible for reporting those vehicles. MoDOT commented that without clarification, vehicle counts may be reported twice, once by the owner and once by the lessee.

MoDOT also commented that while question 24(c) requires applicants to list the number of vehicles with weights greater than or equal to 10,001 pounds that it will operate in interstate commerce, nothing in the question 24(a) instructions indicates that vehicles listed under 24(a) include operations in intrastate and interstate commerce. This commenter recommended that similar language be used within an item in order to be consistent and to easily understand the difference between questions 24(a) and 24(c). MoDOT commented that the proposed question 24 instructions were not clear and gave the impression that question 24(c) was requiring the total number of vehicles shown in (a), which it may not be.

FMCSA Response.

The Agency agrees with MoDOT that the proposed question 24 instructions may be confusing. For this reason, and for other reasons explained below, the Agency is revising proposed question 24 (renumbered question 22 in the final rule) on both the Form MCSA-1 and on the Form MCSA-1 Instructions. As explained above in section V.D.5, beginning on or about September 1, 2012, FMCSA discontinued issuing USDOT Numbers to non-motor carrier leasing companies and such companies would not fill out Form MCSA-1.

When responding to renumbered question 22, applicants should provide the number of each type of CMV that the company uses in its U.S. operations broken out by the method used to acquire the vehicle (owned, term-leased or trip-leased). Owned means the company holds title to the CMV, term leased means the vehicle is leased for a specific time period or term of contract, and trip leased means the CMV is leased on a trip-by-trip basis as needed. If the company owns or leases a school bus, mini-bus, passenger van, or limousine, then it would indicate the number of each type of passenger-carrying CMV (by its passenger-carrying capacity) that is owned, term leased or trip leased. For passenger-carrying vehicles, it would count the driver as a passenger when determining a vehicle's passenger-carrying capacity.

The Agency amends renumbered question 22 on the Form MCSA-1 and Instructions by adding a section (d) to require applicants to provide the number of vehicles that are operated or will be operated solely in intrastate commerce, while section (c) continues to require applicants to provide the number of vehicles that operate interstate. The instructions to question 22(a) (proposed question 24(a)) have been clarified to explain that a CMV is “operated” for purposes of this question “if the vehicle is registered under Federal or State law, or both, in the name of the carrier, or is controlled by the carrier under a trip lease or long-term lease agreement (more than 30 days) during any given year. If a freight forwarder operates CMVs, it is also required to enter its fleet size on the MCSA-1 Form. Both a motor carrier and a freight forwarder (if operating CMVs) must include the number of CMVs operated under a trip lease or long-term lease agreement in their fleet size determinations.”

Section K, Administrative Filings Information

MoDOT recommended that FMCSA delete within Section K any information concerning the insurance company and the filing of financial responsibility; the name of the insurance company; policy number, date issued, etc. (proposed question 44). MoDOT also recommended that FMCSA delete the requirement to document within the MCSA-1 Form whether the Designation of Agents for Service of Process Form (BOC-3) is on file or will be filed

(proposed question 46). With respect to both of these recommendations, MoDOT commented that the information on file with the Agency should be sufficient proof and documentation to determine if the applicant is in compliance with the financial responsibility and process agent filing requirements. This commenter reasoned that if the responses to questions 44 and 46 were inconsistent with the filings received, someone would be required to intervene and question the validity of the application.

FMCSA Response.

FMCSA is retaining proposed question 44 relating to financial responsibility on the MCSA-1 Form (renumbered as question 42 in the final rule) because the information provided is useful in identifying, at the application stage, unsafe carriers that attempt to “reincarnate” as new carriers. However, URS will not prevent an applicant that does not yet have this information from completing an application. FMCSA has removed proposed question 46 from the MCSA-1 Form because providing a simple confirmation that an applicant has submitted the BOC-3 Form to the Agency does not provide any useful information that the Agency does not already have.

Section K, Disclosure of Relationships With Other FMCSA-Regulated Entities

MoDOT also recommended that FMCSA remove column 2, in Section K, proposed question 45. Proposed question 45 would require an applicant to disclose all relationships that it has had (currently or in the past three years) with other FMCSA-regulated entities. The blank table requires an applicant to list the following information about such relationships: USDOT Number, MC/MX/FF number, company's name, and company's latest USDOT safety rating (as columns 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively). MoDOT noted that the MC/MX/FF numbers will be superseded by the USDOT Number.

ATA commented that the instructions for question 45 regarding the reporting of affiliations were unclear. ATA requested clarification of what “affiliation” means in this context: “Is it the narrow, highly technical signification of the federal tax regulations, or some other meaning? At its broadest, the word can mean any business, familial, or personal connection whatever.”

FMCSA Response.

The Agency is retaining column 2 in proposed question 45 (renumbered as question 43) on the MCSA-1 Form, as proposed. The MC/MX/FF number information is necessary for FMCSA to preserve within the URS registration record for an entity all historical information relating to the MC/MX/FF number. For example, if a motor carrier transfers its operating authority to another person, the transferor's historical information associated with the MC number would be recorded in the URS registration record for the transferee. This erects another barrier to reincarnated carriers.

As for the instructions to this question and the term “affiliation,” FMCSA is incorporating the language of sec. 32105 of MAP-21 in defining “affiliation.” Under this section, an applicant for a USDOT Number must disclose any past or current relationship, through common ownership, common management, common control, or common familial relationship to any other person or applicant for registration who was determined to be unfit, unwilling, or unable to comply with applicable regulatory requirements during the 3-year period before the date of the filing of the application. The MCSA-1 Instructions for question 43 have been modified to reflect the MAP-21 requirement.

Comments About MCSA-1 Instructions

Instructions for Reasons To File

ATA commented that on page 4 of the proposed instructions, under the information provided about the “New Entrant Reapplication” reason for filing, the last two sentences are confusing and perhaps contradictory. On the proposed Form MCSA-1 Instructions, these sentences read: “If the motor carrier failed to schedule a New Entrant Safety Audit, did not appear for a safety audit, or failed a safety audit and did not submit corrective actions, the motor carrier must start the process from the beginning. If the motor carrier failed the safety audit, it must also demonstrate that it has corrected the deficiencies that resulted in revocation of its registration.” (emphasis in proposed language).

FMCSA Response.

The Agency has renumbered the “Reasons to File” listed in the Instructions to the MCSA-1 to be consistent with how they are listed on the Form MCSA-1. In both documents, “New Entrant Reapplication” is the second option under “Reasons to File.” There is a $300.00 fee for this transaction.

The language is not contradictory in that a new entrant whose USDOT registration has been revoked and whose operations have been placed out of service by FMCSA may re-apply for USDOT registration but must wait until 30 days after the date of revocation to do so. If revocation resulted from the new entrant's failure to schedule or submit to a safety audit, the new entrant must file an updated Form MCSA-1, pay the $300.00 filing fee, pass a safety audit and re-start the 18-month safety monitoring program commencing from the date the application is approved. But if revocation resulted from the fact that the new entrant failed the safety audit, the new entrant must do all of the following: File an updated Form MCSA-1; pay the $300.00 filing fee; provide evidence of corrective action; and re-start the 18-month safety monitoring program commencing from the date the application is approved. If the new entrant is a for-hire motor carrier subject to chapter 139 and also has its operating authority revoked, it must re-apply for operating authority as set forth in part 365. If revocation was based on the new entrant's failure to file the minimum amounts of financial responsibility or designate agents for service of process, it must also complete administrative filings as well in the reapplication process. The instructions for the new entrant reapplication “Reason to File” have been expanded to include this additional explanation.

Biennial Update Instructions

ATA suggested that the Form MCSA-1 should state plainly, and as often as may be helpful, that while an applicant is required to update its data every 24 months, it may do so as often as it likes. This commenter stated that the PRISM Program effectively requires annual updates, a discrepancy that continues to confuse many carriers.

FMCSA Response.

In response to ATA's suggestion,

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.