[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