Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System

SUMMARY: This action is being taken in response to section 103 of the

ICC Termination Act of 1995, which, among other things, added a

provision requiring the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a

rulemaking proceeding to replace the current Department of

Transportation identification number system, the single State

registration system, the registration/licensing system, and the

financial responsibility information system with a single, on-line

Federal system. The review and improvement of these information systems

will benefit the motor carrier industry, the States, the Federal

government, and the public. The FHWA requests public comment from

interested persons on this action and, specifically, responses to the

questions set forth in this document. Potentially affected persons and

entities who may wish to comment include: members of the motor carrier,

freight forwarder, and transportation broker industries (and those

entities providing financial responsibility to them), shippers, the

States, and the public at large.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written signed comments to FHWA Docket No. MC-96-25,

FHWA, Room 4232, Office of Chief Counsel, HCC-10, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments received will be available for

examination at the above address from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed

stamped postcard or envelope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dixie E. Horton, Office of Motor

Carrier Planning and Customer Liaison, (202) 366-4340, or Ms. Grace

Reidy, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0761, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Congressional Mandate

The FHWA is initiating this rulemaking in response to a

congressional mandate contained in section 103 of the ICC Termination

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 888, December 29, 1995, (the

Act) which added 49 U.S.C. 13908. Section 13908 of title 49, U.S.C.,

directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rulemaking to

``replace the current Department of Transportation identification

number system, the single State registration system under section

14504, the registration system contained in this chapter [139], and the

financial responsibility information system under section 13906 with a

single, on-line, Federal system.'' The registration/licensing system

contained in 49 U.S.C. 13901-13905 is intended to replace the operating

authority requirement for for-hire motor carriers, while also applying

to freight forwarders and transportation brokers, under the Interstate

Commerce Act, as amended (formerly 49 U.S.C. 10921 et seq.).

The rulemaking required under 49 U.S.C. 13908, and a report to

Congress on its findings, must be completed before January 1, 1998.

According to the Act, the new system is to serve as a clearinghouse and

depository of information on and identification of all foreign and

domestic motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders, and others

required to register with the Department of Transportation. Also, it is

to contain information on safety fitness and compliance with the

required levels of financial responsibility.

Pre-Act Background

With the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, Pub. L. 74-255,

47 Stat. 543, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was given

regulatory authority over the motor carrier industry. The ICC was

responsible for issuing operating authority and permits and

administering matters related to insurance, safety, and enforcement as

they applied to for-hire common and contract motor carriers. The ICC

retained economic oversight over the for-hire segment of the motor

carrier industry and jurisdiction over safety for both for-hire and

private motor carriers, until 1967 when the Department of

Transportation (DOT) was created. Within the FHWA, the Bureau of Motor

Carrier Safety (which subsequently became the Office of Motor Carriers)

was established for motor carrier safety activities. The FHWA began to

require all motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce

(not just for-hire) to obtain a USDOT identification number from the

agency for safety purposes (53 FR 18052, May 19, 1988).

The FHWA received authority under the Motor Carrier Act of 1980

(Pub. L. 96-296, 94 Stat. 820) to prescribe minimum levels of financial

responsibility for certain motor carrier classifications for safety

reasons. The motor carrier classifications include: For-hire interstate

motor carriers of property in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000 lbs.(including ICC-exempt); private

and for-hire interstate motor carriers of certain hazardous materials;

and intrastate carriers of hazardous materials in bulk. In 1982, the

FHWA received authority under the Bus Regulatory Reform Act (Pub. L.

97-261, 96 Stat. 1120) to regulate the levels of financial

responsibility covering for-hire motor carriers of passengers operating

in interstate or foreign commerce. By these Acts, the number of motor

carriers who must meet financial responsibility requirements as part of

their safety compliance was expanded. There are approximately 170,320

carriers whose minimum financial responsibility is prescribed by the

FHWA, about forty-five percent of which were also regulated by the ICC.

Under the FHWA regulations, these carriers are not currently required

to provide proof of insurance or other financial responsibility in

order to receive a USDOT identification number. Instead, the FHWA

verifies financial responsibility compliance as a part of its

compliance review process. The actual review of financial

responsibility requires that an FHWA safety specialist ensure that

there is a valid endorsement (Form MCS-90 or Form MCS-82), or valid

authorization to self-insure, at the motor carrier's place of business

that indicates that the carrier possesses the required financial

responsibility coverage meeting the minimum prescribed limits.

The ICC continued the economic regulation of approximately 74,179

for-hire interstate and foreign motor carriers of property and

passengers, which were also regulated by FHWA, by requiring operating

authority or permits and by imposing more complex financial

responsibility requirements as a precondition to receiving and holding

these authorities or permits. The financial responsibility requirements

were prescribed at 49 CFR Part 1043 and took the form of certificates

of insurance, surety bonds, self-insurance, endorsements, or trust

agreements.

[[Page 43817]]

Carriers (as well as freight forwarders and transportation brokers)

regulated by the ICC had to be in continuous compliance or risk

revocation of their operating authority. Their insurance/surety

companies and financial institutions had to give the ICC advance notice

of any cancellations. The ICC maintained an automated monitoring system

of insurance compliance which was updated continuously. In FY 1995, for

example, the ICC used its insurance monitoring system to revoke the

operating authorities of approximately 4,629 for-hire motor carriers,

many of which were reinstated when they later came into compliance.

As a result of the Act, Congress terminated the ICC and transferred

to the FHWA the functions concerning the ICC's remaining licensing and

financial responsibility requirements. But the Act converted the former

operating authority/permit system of the ICC into a registration/

licensing system and, essentially, adopted the parameters of the ICC's

then current insurance filing and monitoring system into this

registration system. The Act also adopted the existing Single State

Registration System (SSRS) which is explained below. The savings

provision in section 204 of the Act preserved all effective ICC

regulations, rules, and decisions until the Secretary finds

modification of these documents warranted, thereby preserving the

status quo for the interim. The FHWA gave public notice of the

continued effectiveness of these ICC documents in 61 FR 14372, April 1,

1996. Congress eliminated the ICC's entry regulations in favor of a

Federal registration/licensing system. Congress also elected to retain

the ICC's proof of insurance system as a condition for obtaining and

retaining a registration/license to operate as for-hire motor carriers.

Although for-hire, ``regulated'' motor carriers represent only some

twenty-three percent of all motor carriers, they transport fully half

of all freight moving in interstate commerce. Private motor carriers of

nonhazardous property represent about fifty-four percent of all motor

carriers, and are not subject to any Federal financial responsibility

requirement. The rest of the universe is comprised of private

hazardous, ICC-exempt, intrastate hazardous in-bulk, private passenger,

mail, and other miscellaneous carriers.

Systems to be Replaced Through the Rulemaking

The following discussion addresses the four current systems that

section 13908 requires to be replaced with a single, on-line Federal

system.

1. Department of Transportation Identification Number System

Currently, a Form MCS-150, Motor Carrier Identification Report,

must be filed by all motor carriers operating in interstate or foreign

commerce. Subsequent to filing, a motor carrier receives a USDOT

identification number which must be displayed on all of the carrier's

self-propelled commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). 49 CFR 390.21. These

numbers are used by the FHWA to track the motor carrier's safety

performance. The universe of carriers subject to the DOT number

identification system includes approximately 320,857 motor carriers,

including some 6,600 bus carriers, engaged in interstate or foreign

commerce that are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations. Attached, as Appendices A through C, respectively, are

copies of Forms MCS-150, MCS-90, and MCS-82, the required certificate

of insurance or surety bond endorsements for covered property carriers,

which display the information required by those forms.

2. Single State Registration System Under 49 U.S.C. 14504

In 1965, Congress authorized the States to police unauthorized

operations by interstate for-hire motor carriers, and allowed the

States to enforce this provision through a multi-State filing system of

operating authority registration, the so-called ``bingo stamp''

program. Under the bingo stamp program, participating States were

allowed to collect registration fees from motor carriers on a per

vehicle basis to administer the program and, through enabling State

statutes, to enforce the program by issuing citations for failing to

register. Because the bingo stamp program was perceived as too costly,

and a regulatory burden on interstate motor carriers (H.R. Conf. Rep.

No. 102-404. 102d Cong., 1st sess. 437(1991)), the Congress, in the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub.

L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914), established the SSRS and directed the ICC

to implement regulations converting the bingo stamp program to a Base

State insurance registration program. The SSRS, under the supervision

of the ICC, required ICC-regulated carriers to: File proof of operating

authority and insurance with their Base State; pay the Base State

filing fees that are subject to allocation among all the participating

SSRS States in which the carriers operate; and keep a copy of the

receipt issued by their Base State in each of their CMVs. Participation

in the SSRS was limited to those 38 States that were collecting fees

for a vehicle identification stamp or number as of January 1, 1991. The

ISTEA directed that the only fees charged could be those for filing

proof of insurance (a pre-condition for interstate operating

authority), and that the fees were frozen to the amount a SSRS State

charged as of November 15, 1991, but in no case could they be higher

than $10 per vehicle (including reciprocal agreements). In 1993, the

ICC issued rules for the SSRS States to follow. When challenged, these

rules were upheld by the court, with one exception concerning who makes

the official copies of the Base State-issued receipt. Nat'l Ass'n of

Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. ICC, 41 F. 3d 721 (D.C. Cir. 1994). That

exception was revised by the ICC to direct the States rather than the

carriers to make the copies, although this rule's implementation was

delayed at the request of the States. Ex Parte No. MC-100 (Sub-No. 6),

Single State Insurance Registration, served July 31, 1995. The SSRS

States continue to operate under these ICC-issued rules today. 49 CFR

1023.

In 49 U.S.C. 14504, Congress continued the SSRS with essentially

the same statutory provisions established in ISTEA, with the exception

that it is now under the supervision of the Secretary and administered

by the FHWA. The States may require for-hire interstate motor carriers

that register under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 139 to: File proof of Federally-

required financial responsibility with their Base State; pay their Base

State such amounts of fee revenues that will be allocated among all the

SSRS States in which the motor carriers operate; and file the names of

local agents for service of process. The Secretary is to maintain

standards for the SSRS. Because Congress recognized the potential loss

of revenues by participating States, as long as the SSRS States follow

the prescribed standards, their actions will not be deemed an

unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The savings provision in

section 204 of the Act preserves the existing ICC SSRS standards/rules

until the Secretary modifies them. Attached, as Appendices D and E,

respectively, are copies of SSRS Forms RS-1 and RS-2, which display the

information required by those forms.

3. 49 U.S.C. Chapter 139 Registration System

The Act, as stated above, converted the former ICC certificates of

operating authority and permits granted to common and contract motor

carriers of property and passengers into a simplified Federal

registration/licensing

[[Page 43818]]

system under Chapter 139 of title 49, U.S.C., where for-hire

registrants must demonstrate their willingness and ability to comply

with Federal safety, financial responsibility, and other relevant

regulations. There were approximately 74,179 for-hire motor carriers

that fell under the former ICC's oversight (additionally, 733 freight

forwarders, and 9,717 brokers), which are now deemed registered under

the new FHWA registration/licensing system, pursuant to a grandfather

clause in 49 U.S.C. 13905(a). The Secretary may withhold, revoke, or

suspend a registration for noncompliance with safety and financial

responsibility regulations. Although the Act eliminated the distinction

between common and contract carriage, the Secretary may register such

motor carriers separately until the replacement system is implemented.

The Chapter 139 Federal registration/licensing system requires domestic

and foreign motor carriers of property and passengers, freight

forwarders, and transportation brokers to register with the FHWA. While

this advance notice of a rulemaking primarily addresses issues relating

to motor carriers of property because they comprise the vast majority

of registrants under this system, this notice also includes motor

carriers of passengers, freight forwarders, and transportation brokers.

The effective period of the registration of all registrants is to be

determined by the Secretary. Filing proof of adequate financial

responsibility coverage is a precondition to registration. Attached, as

Appendices F through H, respectively, are copies of Forms OP-1, OP-1P,

and OP-1FF which display the information required by those forms in

order to register.

4. 49 U.S.C. Section 13906 Financial Responsibility Information System

As part of the Chapter 139 (sections 13901-13905) registration/

licensing system, Congress retained the existing ICC financial

responsibility requirements, with both statutory (49 U.S.C. 13906) and

regulatory (section 204 of the Act) provisions. All for-hire

registrants, including domestic and foreign motor carriers,

transportation brokers, and freight forwarders, as a precondition to

registering, must adhere to financial responsibility provisions. Bonds,

trust agreements, and certificates of insurance, as well as self-

insurance documentation, are prescribed in ICC forms and regulations.

Also, service of process information, under 49 U.S.C. 13304, is

required for registration. Congress retained the requirement that

notices of cancellations of insurance must be filed in advance with the

FHWA and that prompt replacement coverage is required to retain the

registration. Procedures for the Secretary in revocation proceedings

are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 13905. Attached, as Appendices I through O,

respectively, are copies of Forms BMC-91, BMC-91X, BMC-82, BMC-83, BMC-

34, BMC-84 and BOC-3, which display information required by 49 U.S.C.

13906 (and section 13304). They currently are being filed on paper or

electronically (except the Form BOC-3).

The effect of the Chapter 139 registration/licensing and financial

responsibility information systems is the continued monitoring of about

twenty-three percent of the motor carrier industry (formerly ICC-

regulated, for-hire carriers) for current compliance with the insurance

or other financial responsibility requirements. These two systems are

updated frequently and are primarily driven by insurance compliance

data. The goal is to ensure sufficient financial responsibility

coverage to compensate the public for liability arising from personal

injury, property damage, cargo loss or damage, and property broker

defaults. While the SSRS generally reflects the Federal registration/

licensing and insurance systems, there are some differences. For

example, unlike the continuous updating required at the Federal level,

the SSRS requires only an annual filing of financial responsibility

information with the Base State; the motor carrier is under no duty to

update that information during the year. Lastly, the Federal

registration/licensing and financial responsibility requirements for

the formerly ICC regulated, for-hire motor carriers are obviously more

stringent than for the private and exempt motor carriers who simply

file a Form MCS-150.

49 U.S.C. 13908 Rulemaking

In requiring the replacement of these four information/registration

systems, Congress directed the Secretary to consider, at a minimum, the

following items:

1. Whether to integrate the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13304

(service of process information) into the new system;

2. Funding for State enforcement of motor carrier safety

regulations;

3. Whether the existing SSRS is duplicative and burdensome;

4. The justification and need for collecting the statutory fee for

such system under 49 U.S.C. 14504(c)(2)(B)(iv) (the fee system

established by the SSRS States);

5. The public safety;

6. The efficient delivery of transportation services; and

7. How, and under what conditions, to extend the registration

system to private motor carriers and to motor carriers exempt under 49

U.S.C. 13502, 13503, and 13506 (exempt transportation between Alaska

and other States, exempt motor vehicle transportation in terminal

areas, and miscellaneous motor carrier transportation exemptions,

respectively).

Under 49 U.S.C. 13908, the Secretary may also establish a fee

system for the registration/licensing and filing of evidence of

financial responsibility under the new replacement system. If the fee

system is put in place, the fees collected must cover the costs of

operating and upgrading the registration system, including all

personnel costs associated with the system. The fees collected for this

system may be credited to the DOT appropriations account for the

purposes for which such fees are collected, and will be available until

they are expended.

If the Secretary finds that the SSRS should not continue, the

Secretary may prevent a State from imposing any financial

responsibility filing requirements or fees that are for the same

purpose as filings or fees the Secretary requires under the new

replacement system. However, the Secretary may not take this action

unless, through collected fees, he can provide the States with at least

as much revenue as they received in Fiscal Year 1995 under the SSRS

that was in effect on the day before the effective date of the Act. In

addition, all States must receive a minimum apportionment.

The Secretary must complete the rulemaking by January 1, 1998, two

years after the effective date of the Act. The Secretary may implement

such changes as are considered appropriate and in the public interest.

Finally, the Secretary must transmit to Congress a report on any

findings of the rulemaking and the changes the DOT decides to

implement, together with recommendations for any proposed legislative

changes.

Request for Comments

The purpose of this ANPRM is to gather information from a broad

spectrum of comments. One approach to solicit comments is to focus on

the systems themselves, i.e., the four-named systems to be replaced by

a single system. See Section I, Specific Questions for Comments, below.

By carefully examining each of these systems, components that should be

retained, modified, or eliminated in the

[[Page 43819]]

replacement system can be identified. The replacement system may have

to fit into a very complicated set of existing or pending systems.

Crucial to this undertaking will be the number of practical

suggestions, valid data, and constructive comments that are received.

Therefore, a second approach to soliciting comments is offered here

which is much more general in nature and not bound by details and

specifics of the information systems themselves. Rather, its focus is

on advisable policies and appropriate programs within the context of

this rulemaking. See Section II, Specific Questions for Comments,

below. How should motor carriers be treated regarding matters of

registration and financial responsibility? Are registration/licensing

and financial responsibility coverage necessary? Does it depend upon

the type of motor carrier? What are the roles for the Federal and State

governments, as well as private industry, in these matters? What is

best for the public? What is the bare essential information needed from

motor carriers? How can this essential information be solicited in a

cost effective manner? Once policies and needs are identified, programs

and requirements will follow. Afterwards, an information system can be

designed to accommodate them. Commenters may respond to either approach

or simply submit other information relevant to this task.

Specific Questions for Comment

I. Four Existing Systems--Replacement System

A. The US DOT Identification Number System

1. Should the FHWA retain the US DOT identification number system

as is? Who should be included as contributors to and users of this

system? How could the system be improved? Should Forms MCS-150, MCS-90

and MCS-82 ( See Appendices A through C) be retained as is, modified,

or eliminated? Do they capture only the necessary information? Do they

capture enough information? Should the information in Form MCS-150 be

updated periodically? If so, at what intervals?

2. Should all interstate motor carriers use the US DOT

identification number system and should the separate registration

system for for-hire carriers be eliminated?

3. Should all interstate motor carriers using the US DOT

identification number system pay a filing fee for maintaining a current

register?

4. Do random compliance reviews alone constitute sufficient

monitoring of financial responsibility compliance? Should the reviews

alone replace the continuous financial responsibility monitoring system

in 49 U.S.C. 13906? Is there a valid relationship between safety and

financial responsibility coverage? Is there credible evidence that

underfunded motor carriers and repeated financial responsibility

coverage violations by motor carriers indicate problem carriers? Please

submit such examples and examples to the contrary and, if possible,

documentation.

5. Is it feasible to have the States or the private sector, as

contractors of the Federal government, operate the US DOT

identification number system? Please comment on how this could work on

a national scale.

6. Are there existing information systems--private or government--

into which the US DOT identification number system could be integrated?

B. 49 U.S.C. Sections 13901-13905 Registration System

1. How does this registration system improve upon the former ICC

system of operating authority? How can it be developed to assure

improvement? Who should be required to register and why? Should Form

OP-1 (See Appendix F) be retained as it is? What changes, if any,

should be made? Does it capture only the necessary information? Does it

require too much information? Does it require enough information?

Please explain.

2. Should all interstate motor carriers be required to register in

this system? Should this include private and exempt motor carriers?

Would this inclusion be practical and cost efficient?

3. Is it feasible for the States or the private sector to operate

this registration system as contractors of the Federal government?

Assume all registrants would be issued a USDOT identification number,

could the States or the private sector do this and how could it work?

4. Should both the USDOT identification number system for private

and exempt motor carriers and the for-hire registration system operate

separately in the replacement system? How could they be combined?

5. Should transportation brokers and freight forwarders still be

required to register? Should their registration forms (See Appendices F

and H, respectively) be changed and why?

6. Should motor carriers of passengers be treated differently from

motor carriers of property for registration purposes and why? Should

their registration form (See Appendix G) be changed and why?

7. What circumstances should cause the FHWA to exercise authority

to suspend registration, for what duration, and what process should

apply?

C. 49 U.S.C. Section 13906 Financial Responsibility System

1. Should the FHWA continue this system as is? Who should be

included in this system and why? Should the FHWA include private and

exempt motor carriers? What requirements should apply? How could the

system be improved? How could these financial responsibility and

service of process information forms (See Appendices I through O) be

improved? Do they capture only the necessary information? Do they ask

for unnecessary information? Do they ask for enough information?

2. Should self-insurance continue to be offered? How could it be

improved? Should service of process agent information continue to be

required? Should this requirement be expanded to private and exempt

motor carriers?

3. Do insurance companies or other entities use the information on

the financial responsibility forms? For what reasons is this

information useful? Is there another source for this information?

4. Should financial reponsibility information be contained on bills

of lading and the financial responsibility requirements for

registration be eliminated? Would this work?

5. Is continuous insurance monitoring of for-hire carriers cost

effective? Is it in the public interest? Should all insurance

information be required to be filed electronically? Should all motor

carriers be required to offer proof of financial responsibility

compliance when registering? Should they only be required to update

their status annually? Is continuous monitoring needed for all motor

carriers or just for for-hire carriers?

6. Should freight forwarders and transportation brokers continue to

be required to follow financial responsibility requirements?

7. Are private and exempt motor carriers subject to any financial

responsibility requirements (compulsory insurance) at the State level?

If so, is compliance assured? Is this requirement sufficient to protect

against the potential consequences of motor carrier accidents? Is

compliance tied to State registration?

8. Should motor carriers of passengers be required to be treated

differently from motor carriers of property for financial

responsibility purposes? Why?

[[Page 43820]]

D. Single State Registration System (SSRS)

1. Should SSRS continue as is? If States have access to financial

responsibility and registration information for interstate for-hire

carriers, is SSRS needed? How could it be improved? Should Forms RS-1

and 2 (See Appendices D and E) be retained, modified, or eliminated?

Should a new SSRS system be expanded to all States?

2. Who uses SSRS information and for what purposes? Are there other

sources for this information? Is this information necessary? How do the

SSRS States use this SSRS information?

3. How useful is Federal financial responsibility coverage filing

information for State enforcement purposes, especially where there is

no immediate updating required even when there is a change in the

coverage status of a motor carrier? Do SSRS States follow-up to see if

the copy of the financial responsibility form filed at the ICC or FWHA,

and sent to the Base State, was actually accepted by that Federal

agency and not later rejected for cause? How important is real-time

data to State enforcement?

4. Would SSRS States be willing to leave the SSRS if their revenues

from it were matched or exceeded but they had to operate the

replacement system as contractors of the Federal government?

5. What was the SSRS fee revenue for FY1995 for each SSRS State?

What is the annual SSRS fee revenue for each year since SSRS was

established? In each SSRS State, was this SSRS revenue earmarked for

safety enforcement each year? What percentage of the annual SSRS fee

revenue went to areas not related to financial responsibility coverage

or safety? For each SSRS State, what are the annual figures for the

number of uninsured motor carriers detected in that State and were

those carriers detected with SSRS information or by other means? If

detected by other means, how was the information provided and who

provided it? For each SSRS State, give the annual number of vehicles

registered in that State under SSRS and the annual SSRS vehicle fee

amount since the SSRS was established.

6. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program has Federal

performance standards for the States to follow. If the replacement

system is operated by the States, what kinds of Federal standards

should the States be required to follow and why?

7. If the SSRS were eliminated or preempted, what would be the net

revenue loss to each SSRS State? Assuming no Federal funding, how would

the States replace that revenue or funding programs supported by that

revenue? Alternatively, what programs would be cut if the SSRS revenues

were not replaced?

E. Conceptual Design Suggestions

1. Given the large amount of change within the motor carrier

industry due to recently passed legislation, and the transitional

stages of various programs such as the International Registration Plan,

the International Fuel Tax Agreement, the Commercial Vehicle

Information System, among others, is it advisable at this stage to

combine the four existing systems, eliminating the overlap and

unnecessarily required information for the replacement system? Should

the replacement system be designed independently of the components of

the four existing systems that are to be replaced?

2. Is a combined, national replacement system run by the States

with Federal standards and access feasible or advisable? What if the

private sector operates it? Is there a preference between a

``National'' (nationwide but not necessarily Federally-run) or a

``Federal'' (centralized, Federally-run) system?

3. Should the replacement system be responsive to daily changes in

a motor carrier's financial responsibility status, or be updated

annually? Are there other suggestions?

4. Can a single standard filing instrument be designed to cover all

four existing systems, and still assure insurance companies that they

will not be liable for any operations of a motor carrier not under

their policies? How could this be achieved?

5. Is ``one-stop shopping'' for the motor carrier industry a

feasible goal? For all motor carriers or just for the for-hire motor

carriers? Can and should it be done in phases? Is one national

identification number for each motor carrier desirable and feasible?

6. What role, now or in the future, should the International

Registration Plan, the Commercial Vehicle Information System Network,

the Motor Carrier Management Information System, the SAFETYNET, and the

Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System, play in the replacement

system's design or operation? Are there other current Federal, State,

or private information systems which could or should be utilized to

construct or expand the replacement system? If there are, please

explain what role such a system or systems should have. Should the

replacement system designed now be adaptable for future integration and

coordination with other systems?

7. Please submit a conceptual design for the replacement system

which adheres to 49 U.S.C. 13908. Can a replacement system (and fee

system) be constructed that will cover operating costs and match SSRS

revenues for FY1995, and not be an unreasonable burden on interstate

commerce?

8. Does the universe of motor carriers affect the capacity and

effectiveness of the replacement system? If so, how can a system be

designed to handle the appropriate number of motor carriers for the

public good rather than be driven only by its capacity limitations? If

the statute is interpreted to require inclusion of private and exempt

motor carriers in the replacement system to some degree, what degree

should that be? Should they have fewer requirements than the for-hire

motor carriers? Could they be treated as a subsystem for the larger

system? Or should it be the reverse?

9. What features should the replacement system have? Should the

capability of being able to revoke a registration for noncompliance

with financial responsibility requirements be retained? Why and for

whom? How would this capability affect the feasibility of the system?

10. Who should have access to this data and how should they have

access? Should there be a fee for access?

11. Is privatization of the replacement system a better option than

a federally or State run system? Should registration/financial

responsibility compliance be a function for Federal oversight?

12. Please comment on the following concept as an optional

approach: a self- registration system where the Federal government and

the States would determine who would be required to file and what

information must be filed. Information requirements may vary depending

on the type of carrier. Each regulated entity would be required to

provide information to a central data bank, either directly or through

a State agency. New entrants would be assigned a reference number which

could act as the registration or file number for all purposes. The

computer could generate the form required based on the information

required, as well as cross-check several sources of information on the

registrant, if appropriate. Investigations and inspections would use

this data, and if the motor carrier did not submit all of the required

information, there would be a penalty for the violation. This system

would be self-generating and self-maintaining. Please offer suggestions

on whether and how financial responsibility

[[Page 43821]]

requirements could fit into this concept, as well as other comments.

F. Fees

1. Could a fee system be designed to cover operating costs and

match SSRS revenues and still be feasible?

2. If all motor carriers paid a fee, the average cost of

registration, per for-hire motor carrier, would go down. Would the

inclusion of all motor carriers in a required registration fee program,

and the availability of that revenue, enable a system to be designed

and operated in an effective and efficient manner?

3. Is the different treatment of the for-hire (once ICC-regulated)

motor carriers from the private and formerly ICC-exempt motor carriers

regarding registration/licensing and financial responsibility

warranted? Should this difference be addressed?

G. Legislative Suggestions

1. Please provide suggested any legislative changes which may be

required to implement your suggested replacement system and explain why

they are necessary.

2. Please provide other suggested legislative changes you may think

necessary and explain why they are necessary.

H. Miscellaneous

1. What necessary attributes should an effective clearinghouse and

depository have? Does the volume of information affect the efficiency

of the clearinghouse? What is the best way to address this? What

information should the clearinghouse handle? Is a national

clearinghouse for all motor carriers feasible?

2. Section 13908(a) of 49 U.S.C. states that the clearinghouse will

handle information on safety fitness and compliance with required

levels of financial responsibility coverage. Exactly what information

on these two subjects should be included and why?

II. Policies, Programs and Requirements--Registration and Financial

Responsibility

A. Strategic Vision for this Rulemaking

1. What other options are available beside the current registration

and financial responsibility programs? What should be the goals of

these optional programs, such as self-certification, a totally

centralized program at the Federal level or a totally decentralized

program at the State level?

2. What should be the policies to follow or advance in these

programs and why?

3. What are the technical, political and organizational issues

related to each optional program?

4. What would be the major functions of each optional program?

5. What are the estimates of the major costs and benefits for each

option?

6. What should be the roles of the FHWA, the motor carrier industry

(of property and of passengers), the freight forwarder and broker

industries, the States, the public, and others in matters of

registration and financial responsibility? What are the proper roles to

be played by the public sector? By the private sector?

7. What are the roles of the for-hire carrier and the private

carrier in the marketplace? How should they be treated regarding

registration and financial responsibility matters and why? How do we

balance the public's need to know with the right to operate without

unnecessary regulatory burdens?

8. What place does insurance or other financial responsibility

coverage have in the marketplace? At what price should it be pursued?

If there is compliance at the State level, is there a need for

compliance at the Federal level compliance as well, or vice versa?

B. Needs and Demands--Registration and Financial Responsibility

1. Who should be the customers or users of this gathered

information? What are the customers' and users' needs? How should they

be met? By whom?

2. How important are: Accessibility; real time delivery;

integration; uniformity; roadside delivery; accuracy; balance of needs;

ability to update; and ability to crossreference? What price are users

willing to pay?

3. What registration and financial responsibility information about

motor carriers is needed by whom and when? How valuable is this

information? How is this information used now? Are there other sources?

C. Requirements--Registration and Financial Responsibility

1. How do revenues or funding affect what society can demand from

business or government in terms of the costs of registration and

insurance?

2. What should be required from motor carriers in these matters and

why?

3. Who should enforce these registration and financial

responsibility requirements and what is the best way to do so? Who can

do this better and why?

4. Can these registration and financial responsibility requirements

be fulfilled periodically or annually, or must they be continually

updated? Must they be monitored? Please explain your answer.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing due date indicated above will be considered and will be

available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments

received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and

will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late

comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in

the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing

date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for

new material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The action being considered by the FHWA in this document would

replace four existing motor carrier registration/information systems.

The FHWA has determined that the agency's response to the congressional

mandate to replace these systems would be a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866 and a significant regulation under

the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of

Transportation because of the substantial public interest anticipated

in this action. The potential economic impact of this proposed

rulemaking is not known at this time. Therefore, a full regulatory

evaluation has not yet been prepared. The FHWA intends to evaluate the

economic and other issues attendant to this regulatory action. The

agency intends to use the information collected from commenters to this

docket in the development of that evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Due to the preliminary nature of this document and lack of

necessary information on costs, the FHWA is unable at this time to

evaluate the effects of the potential regulatory changes on small

entities. The FHWA solicits comments, information, and data on these

potential impacts.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

This action will be analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 to determine whether it has

sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

[[Page 43822]]

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor

Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and

activities do not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action, if taken beyond the ANPRM stage would, in all

likelihood, impact existing collection of information requirements for

the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (49 U.S.C. 3501-

3520). Because of the potential changes, existing Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) approvals would be required.

National Environment Policy Act

The agency will analyze this action for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to determine

whether this action will have any effect on the quality of the

environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulatory identification number (RIN) is assigned to each

regulatory action listed in the United Agenda of Federal Regulations.

The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda

in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of

this document can be used to cross reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Chapter III

Motor carriers, Commercial motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety,

Registration, Financial responsibility, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Safety, Transportation.

Issued on: August 14, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 43823]]

Appendix A to Preamble Form MCS-150, Motor Carrier Identification

Report

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.000

[[Page 43824]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.001

[[Page 43825]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.002

[[Page 43826]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.003

[[Page 43827]]

Appendix B to Preamble Form MSC-90, Endorsement for Motor Carrier

Policies of Insurance for Public Liability Under Sections 29 and 30

of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.004

[[Page 43828]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.005

[[Page 43829]]

Appendix C to Preamble Form MCS-82, Motor Carrier Liability Surety

Bond Under Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.006

[[Page 43830]]

Appendix D to Preamble Form RS-1, Uniform Application for Single

State Registration for Motor Carriers Operating Under the Authority

Issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.007

[[Page 43831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.008

[[Page 43832]]

Appendix E to Preamble Form RS-2, Registration Receipt Order Form

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.009

[[Page 43833]]

Appendix F to Preamble Form OP-1, Application for Motor Property

Carrier and Broker Authority

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.010

[[Page 43834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.011

[[Page 43835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.012

[[Page 43836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.013

[[Page 43837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.014

[[Page 43838]]

Appendix G to Preamble Form OP-1(P), Application for Motor

Passenger Carrier Authority

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.015

[[Page 43839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.016

[[Page 43840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.017

[[Page 43841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.018

[[Page 43842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.019

[[Page 43843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.020

[[Page 43844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.021

[[Page 43845]]

Appendix H to Preamble Form OP-1(FF), Application for Freight

Forwarder Authority

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.022

[[Page 43846]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.023

[[Page 43847]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.024

[[Page 43848]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.025

[[Page 43849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.026

[[Page 43850]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.027

[[Page 43851]]

Appendix I to Preamble Form B.M.C. 91, Motor Carrier Automobile

Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of

Insurance

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.028

[[Page 43852]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.029

[[Page 43853]]

Appendix J to Preamble Form B.M.C. 91X, Motor Carrier Automobile

Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of

Insurance

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.030

[[Page 43854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.031

[[Page 43855]]

Appendix K to Preamble Form B.M.C. 82, Motor Carrier Bodily Injury

Liability and Property Damage Liability Surety Bond Under 49 U.S.C.

10927

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.032

[[Page 43856]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.033

[[Page 43857]]

Appendix L to Preamble--Form B.M.C. 83, Motor Common Carrier Cargo

Liability Surety Bond Under 49 U.S.C. 10927

Form not published in the Federal Register. An original Form B.M.C.

83 can be found in FHWA Docket No. MC-96-25, FHWA, Room 4232, Office of

Chief Counsel, HCL-10, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

[[Page 43858]]

Appendix M to Preamble--Form B.M.C. 34, Motor Carrier Cargo

Liability Certificate of Insurance

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.034

[[Page 43859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.035

[[Page 43860]]

Appendix N to Preamble--Form B.M.C. 84, Property Broker's Surety

Bond Under 49 U.S.C. 10927

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.036

[[Page 43861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.037

[[Page 43862]]

Appendix O to Preamble--Form BOC-3, Designation of Agents--Motor

Carriers and Brokers

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.038

[[Page 43863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU96.039

[FR Doc. 96-21351 Filed 8-23-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C