[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 166 (Monday, August 26, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 43816-43863] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-21351] [[Page 43815]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part II Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Federal Highway Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Ch. III Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System; Proposed Rule; Advance Notice Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules [[Page 43816]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 49 CFR Chapter III [FHWA Docket No. MC-96-25] RIN 2125-AD91 Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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