\57\ See 76 FR 66506, 66519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TIA expressed support for the proposed elimination of 49 CFR part
365, subpart D. However, TIA cautioned against simplifying the
application and registration process to the point it would increase
reincarnated carriers. TIA commented that FMCSA must be careful to
establish the application and registration process in a way that will
address certain abuses that have arisen under the current system, and
that retains adequate protections for the shipping public. TIA
requested that the Agency continue to allow MC Numbers to reflect a
broker's business history. To prevent churning of operating authorities
by unscrupulous or fraudulent operators, TIA encouraged FMCSA to take
steps to conduct a thorough review of repeat applications by carriers
or brokers filed within the same year to create an active database of
companies. This commenter suggested that the Agency link the URS or
other registration requirement with operating authority. Finally, to
further prevent churning and confusion in the marketplace, TIA
suggested that FMCSA prohibit the sale of authority numbers outside the
sale of the company.
    FMCSA Response. The ICCTA repealed 49 U.S.C. 10926, which gave the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) specific authority to review and
approve transfers of operating authority which historically was
assigned to non-exempt and for-hire motor carriers, brokers, and
freight forwarders. However, FMCSA has never allowed and will continue
to disallow transfers of USDOT numbers which have been issued for
safety-related registration and now will become the unique identifier
for FMCSA-regulated entities. The commenter, however, brought up
legitimate concerns about potential carrier safety record-related
impacts of the URS combining commercial operating authority and safety
registration under the same USDOT Number.
    Although ICCTA removed the Agency's authority under former 49
U.S.C. 10926 to approve transfers of authority, it did not prohibit
FMCSA from requiring notice of transfers. The Agency's statutory
authority permits it to obtain information from carriers and brokers,
and from the employees of such entities, that FMCSA decides is
necessary to carry out its regulatory responsibilities.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 49 U.S.C. 13301(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule will result in the development of a registration system
that combines information associated with the Agency's safety and
commercial registration systems in a way that does not exist today.
FMCSA believes that combining these separate Agency information systems
into the URS will improve the Agency's ability to detect and prevent
unscrupulous motor carriers that reinvent themselves to avoid
compliance with regulations and enforcement actions. The Agency
believes it can identify these reincarnated carriers despite
discontinuing issuance of the MC Numbers because a motor carrier's
safety history is associated with its USDOT Number, not its MC Number.
All for-hire motor carriers that have MC Numbers and are subject to the
Agency's safety jurisdiction also have USDOT Numbers.
    Today, the Agency uses several screening algorithms to identify
potential reincarnated carriers, which will continue under the URS. For
example, the Agency already has implemented a New Applicant Screening
(NAS) Process. The Agency currently uses the NAS to provide additional
scrutiny to all applications involving passenger carrier and household
goods (HHG) authority. However, without a transfer notification
requirement, this and other protections discussed in the SNPRM may be
insufficient to quickly identify reincarnated carriers. Absent a
notification requirement, a carrier's operating authority could change
hands through the sale of a company, and the safety history of the
transferor company could be lost if the transferee company already has
its own USDOT Number that it will continue to use with its newly
acquired operating authority. This would result in a loophole that
would allow a carrier to avoid a bad safety history by obtaining a new
USDOT Number and shedding its old USDOT Number and poor safety history.
    In response to the concerns expressed by TIA, therefore, the Agency
has decided to require, in new Sec.  390.201(d)(5), that a person who
obtains operating authority through a transfer, as defined in part 365,
subpart D, notify FMCSA of the transfer within 30 days of consummation
of the transaction by filing either an updated Form MCSA-1 or a new
Form MCSA-1, if the transferee did not have an existing USDOT Number at
the time of transfer. Section 390.201(d)(5) also requires the
transferor to file an updated Form MCSA-1 to notify FMCSA of the
transfer, which will allow the Agency to maintain accurate records of
entities' operating authorities. When providing the transfer of
operating authority information on an updated Form MCSA-1, a transferee
or transferor would check ``Notification of Transfer of Operating
Authority (Both Transferor and Transferee)'' as the reason for filing,
and the information that the online Form MCSA-1 will require is the
name, address, phone number, and USDOT Numbers of the transferor and
transferee. They will also need to scan

and provide an electronic copy of the operating authority being
transferred.
    The information provided with a notification of transfer of
authority will ensure that the Agency's IT systems are up to date and
that the safety history associated with a carrier's operating authority
and its associated USDOT Number remains connected with that operating
authority, regardless of any changes in the entities that own that
operating authority. FMCSA is also revising part 365, subpart D, to
specify the procedures for motor carriers, property brokers, and
freight forwarders to report to FMCSA transactions that result in the
transfer of operating authority. Section 365.403(a) defines transfer as
``any transaction in which an operating authority issued to one person
is taken over by another person or persons who assume legal
responsibility for the operations. Such transactions include a purchase
of all or some of the assets of a company, a merger of two or more
companies, or acquisition of controlling interest in a company through
a purchase of company stock.'' Section 365.403(c) defines person as an
``individual, partnership, corporation, company, association, or other
form of business, or a trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal
representative of any of these entities.'' Finally, Sec.  365.405
references Sec.  390.201(d)(5) and specifies that both the transferor
and the transferee must supply the full name, address, and USDOT
Numbers of the transferor and transferee (if the transferee has a USDOT
Number), as well as a copy of the operating authority being
transferred.
    The Form MCSA-1 and Instructions have been revised to accommodate a
filing for purposes of notification of transfer of operating authority
(see section O). In particular, the Agency has added an additional
reason for filing: ``Notification of Transfer of Operating Authority
(Transferor or Transferee),'' which will have no associated fee. If a
person filing the Form MCSA-1 checks this reason, the user will be
directed to Section O (Notification of Transfer of Operating
Authority). The applicant will first be asked whether it is a
transferor or a transferee. If the applicant is a transferee, the
applicant will be prompted to confirm whether or not it has a USDOT
Number. If the transferee does not yet have a USDOT Number, the
applicant will be re-directed to Section A, and the applicant will be
required to fill out all applicable sections of the Form MCSA-1 as a
new applicant.
    If the transferee has an existing USDOT Number, and in all cases
for the transferor filing the MCSA-1 for purposes of notification of
transfer of operating authority, Section O will prompt the applicant to
enter the name, address, contact information, and USDOT Number for both
the transferor and the transferee. As it does with all new applicants
for a USDOT Number, the Agency will determine whether the transferee is
willing and able to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, and
will ensure that the transferee has satisfied all applicable
administrative filing requirements, before activating the transferee's
USDOT Number. The Form MCSA-1 Instructions have been revised to explain
the new reason for filing and to direct transferors and transferees on
how to enter data in Section O.

J. Reinstatement of Operating Authority

    Related to issues of churning operating authority by reincarnated
carriers, TIA also urged FMCSA to prohibit the practice of reinstating
authority numbers that have been inactive for more than 12 months. This
commenter cited data from Internet Truckstop that 22 percent of
reinstated MC Numbers were not reinstated by the original owner (i.e.,
that they had been purchased by a different company). TIA stated that
any change in ownership usually flags a change in the company's methods
of operation and business practices, quoting an Internet Truckstop
report. For these reasons, TIA recommended that entities should be
prohibited from purchasing and reinstating a retired MC Number, unless
someone purchases the entire company. TIA urged FMCSA to completely
retire MC Numbers and USDOT Numbers that have been out of service for
more than 12 months.
    FMCSA Response. As was stated in the SNPRM, FMCSA no longer has
authority under former 49 U.S.C. 10926 to approve transfers of
operating authority. However, the final rule requires motor carriers
and other regulated entities to notify FMCSA of any transactions that
may directly or indirectly result in the transfer of operating
authority (see section V.I). This notification requirement will help
FMCSA keep track of possible churning of operating authority
registrations by unsafe carriers. Operating authority or a USDOT Number
may become inactive for legitimate business reasons. For example, a
small carrier may decide to lease its vehicles and drivers to another
authorized carrier for a period of time rather than operate under its
own MC or USDOT Number because it may be economically beneficial to do
so. Or, a carrier that may have decided to operate solely in intrastate
commerce may subsequently resume operations as an interstate carrier.
FMCSA believes that adopting TIA's proposal to permanently ``retire''
MC and USDOT Numbers that have been inactive for more than 12 months,
thus requiring carriers to apply for new numbers and re-enter the new
entrant program, would be unduly burdensome for carriers that have
legitimate reasons for temporary deactivation.

K. Unauthorized Re-Brokering of Freight

    The SNPRM proposed that URS apply to property brokers because
section 4302 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Federal on-line replacement
system to ``serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on,
and identification of, all foreign and domestic carriers, motor private
carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and others required to register
with the Department of Transportation . . .'' \59\ TIA asked FMCSA to
issue separate operating authority numbers to entities operating as
both motor carriers and property brokers so that the Agency could
prevent unauthorized re-brokering of freight, and to enable shippers to
know which type of entity they are dealing with at the time of
arranging for the transportation of cargo. This commenter asserted that
many motor carriers currently operate under the misperception that
registering as a motor carrier entitles them to broker freight to other
motor carriers when they cannot handle it themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 49 U.S.C. 13908(b); see 76 FR 66506, 66512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TIA commented that the unauthorized re-brokering of freight has led
to many commercial problems for its member brokers. Further, TIA stated
that when undisclosed re-brokering of freight occurs, carriers with
poor safety histories--often those that would have never been chosen by
the shipper or broker--can remain in business and circumvent the
safeguards intended to discourage the use of unsafe carriers. Thus, TIA
reasoned that unauthorized re-brokering of freight by motor carriers
also frustrates the efforts of government and the industry to promote
the use of safe carriers.
    TIA commented that the proposed URS and Form MCSA-1 would
perpetuate the confusion caused by the current FMCSA registration
system (inherited from the ICC) by permitting an entity to use a single
registration process to apply for authority as both a carrier and
broker, and by using a single USDOT Number to cover them both. This
commenter asserted that this characteristic of the registration system
makes it impossible for the party

tendering the cargo to be sure which operating authority the carrier is
choosing to exercise. Therefore, TIA urged FMCSA to require separate
applications for motor carrier, broker, and freight forwarder
authority, and to assign different USDOT Numbers for motor carrier and
broker authority, even when they are held by the same entity.
    FMCSA Response. A ``broker'' is a party who, for compensation,
arranges, or offers to arrange the transportation of property by an
authorized motor carrier.\60\ When shipments are transported by motor
carriers, both the carrier and the shipper may use brokers as agents in
connection with the movement of goods. Currently, entities may hold
authority to operate as both a motor carrier and a broker, either under
their own name or through affiliated companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 49 U.S.C. 13102(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to enactment of MAP-21, separate broker authority was not
necessarily required for motor carriers to lawfully tender freight to
other motor carriers for transportation, provided the motor carrier
arranged for the transportation of shipments which they are authorized
to transport and which they have accepted and legally bound themselves
to transport.\61\ Section 32915 of MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 13902 to
prohibit a motor carrier from providing broker services unless it first
registers as a broker under 49 U.S.C. 13904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 49 CFR 371.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

L. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance

    Greyhound stated that FMCSA continues to refuse to make compliance
with the ADA an issue to be considered before registering motor
carriers of passengers. Greyhound commented that enactment of the Over-
the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007 (OTRB Act),
Public Law 110-291, requires FMCSA to assess an applicant's willingness
and ability to comply with DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37,
subpart H in the same way the Agency considers the applicant's ability
to comply with other applicable regulations, such as those pertaining
to safety and financial responsibility. Greyhound commented that FMCSA
must gather sufficient information to make the basic ADA fitness
determination.
    Greyhound also requested that FMCSA modify the equipment list
requirements on page 6 of the proposed Form MCSA-1 to ensure that all
fixed-route operators comply with requirements regarding lift-equipped
vehicles or provision of equivalent service, as applicable. Greyhound
also urged that New Entrant Safety Audits be expanded to include
questions regarding compliance with lift-equipped vehicle requirements
for both demand responsive and fixed-route passenger carriers.
    FMCSA Response. Although the OTRB Act required FMCSA to consider an
applicant's willingness and ability to comply with DOT's ADA
regulations in determining whether to grant its application for
operating authority, it did not mandate a particular means of doing so.
Section G of Form MCSA-1 requires passenger carrier applicants to
certify that they are ``fit, willing, and able to comply with all
pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements, including the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Americans with Disabilities Act
regulations for over-the-road bus companies located at 49 CFR part 37,
subpart H, if applicable.'' After explaining differences in terminology
between the part 37 regulations and FMCSA regulations, the Form directs
the applicant to the Agency's Web site for a general overview of the
Department's ADA regulations. This certification is more specific than
the certification in Section M of Form MCSA-1, in which all applicants
must certify that they are willing and able to comply ``with all
pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements and regulations issued
or administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, including
operational regulations, safety fitness requirements, motor vehicle
safety standards and minimum financial responsibility, and designation
of process agent requirements.'' Thus, at the application stage, the
Agency will assess an applicant's willingness and ability to comply
with ADA requirements through self-certification. If a member of the
public or a potential competitor has evidence that an applicant is not
willing and able to comply with DOT's ADA regulations, they may raise
this issue in a protest to the application filed in accordance with 49
CFR part 365, subpart B.
    Regarding the modification of the equipment list requirements,
FMCSA believes that the certification in Section G of Form MCSA-1
complies with the OTRB Act and that it is unnecessary to require
applicants to include detailed ADA compliance information on the
application form. FMCSA indicated in the SNPRM that it would verify ADA
compliance during the New Entrant Safety Audit stage. New Entrant
Safety Audits are generally conducted within 9 months after a new
entrant for-hire passenger carrier is issued operating authority
registration and in the future will be conducted within 120 days as
required by MAP-21. At this time, the Agency will probe into the
carrier's ADA compliance. Although it is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, the Agency will consider augmenting the New Entrant Safety
Audit to include verifying compliance by both fixed-route and demand
responsive passenger carriers with the fleet standards and/or
equivalent service standard contained in 49 CFR 37.183 and 185.
    If noncompliance with DOT's ADA regulations is discovered in the
course of the safety audit or a Compliance Review, FMCSA will, in
accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ), either forward the information to DOJ for appropriate
action or conduct its own investigation and attempt to resolve the
violations. We believe that these procedures are sufficient to meet the
Agency's obligations under the OTRB Act.

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

    OOIDA, ATA, NTTC and MoDOT proposed extensive corrections,
revisions and enhancements to the proposed form and instructions. In
this section, the Agency discusses comments on the MCSA-1 Form and
Instructions not otherwise addressed above. FMCSA has made corrections
to the typographical errors that commenters pointed out.
General
Applicants Accustomed to MCS-150 Terms and Instructions
    ATA commented that where an existing form, such as the MCS-150, has
been in use for years, and those filing it have become accustomed to
the form and its instructions, it may be advisable, whenever possible,
to continue to use the same language as the existing form, and the same
instructions.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency acknowledges that some of the terms used
in Form MCSA-1 are new and unfamiliar to entities that do not require
operating authority. However, these

entities will need to provide only information pertinent to their
specific operations. FMCSA will strive to make the online system and
instructions as clear as possible when designing and implementing the
new system, and will provide examples to clarify registration processes
whenever feasible.
Use of the Word ``Applicant''
    ATA commented that although the MCSA-1 Form is a multi-purpose
form, throughout the form and instructions the filer is referred to as
the ``applicant,'' although only a minority, perhaps a small minority,
of filers would be applicants for operating authority registration. ATA
commented that the result would be confusion for those other than
applicants, as such entities would be uncertain as to what parts of
Form MCSA-1 apply to them. This commenter recommended that the Form
MCSA-1 and Instructions use a more general, neutral term, such as
``filer.''
    FMCSA Response. The Agency disagrees and is retaining the use of
the word applicant in Form MCSA-1 and the Instructions. Under the URS,
every entity under FMCSA jurisdiction is considered an applicant for
registration, not just those requesting operating authority. We
recognize, however, that some existing entities will also file changes
to their name, address, form of business, and/or updates to their
registration information on the Form MCSA-1, but they too will be
considered as ``applicants'' requesting a change or update in their
registration data. Because the Agency wants to ensure that the
information entered on Form MCSA-1 pertains to the entity seeking
registration or other appropriate actions and not a third-party filing
company, FMCSA believes the use of a more general term (such as
``filer'') would be inappropriate. All entities must indicate their
``Reasons to File'' the Form MCSA-1. Because the Form MCSA-1 is
electronic, entities will be directed to the appropriate sections that
need to be completed once they indicate their reason for filing. This
aspect of the URS will eliminate any uncertainty as to what parts of
Form MCSA-1 apply to entities filing the form. Accordingly, the Agency
will use the term ``applicant,'' rather than filer, throughout the URS
rule, the Form MCSA-1, and the Instructions. In addition, sec. 32105 of
MAP-21, which adds new section 31134 to Title 49, U.S. Code, requires
persons subject to the Agency's safety jurisdiction to submit an
``application'' to receive a USDOT Number. The universe of
``applicants'' is therefore not limited to persons seeking operating
authority registration.
References to Federal Statutes or Regulations
    ATA pointed out that on the first page of the proposed Instructions
for Form MCSA-1, in the line immediately above the bullet points, a
reference is made to ``interstate commerce as defined in 49 CFR
390.5.'' The commenter asserted that this sort of technical reference
would not be encouraging to unsophisticated applicants as they begin to
engage with this already intimidating form. Further, ATA commented that
if applicants do read the referenced regulation, they may be misled
again, to believe that interstate commerce only includes movements by
vehicles that cross state lines. This commenter stated that, in
general, references to Federal statutes or regulations will rarely be
helpful.
    FMCSA Response. Generally, the Agency cites Federal regulations and
statutes in the Form MCSA-1 and Instructions because cross referencing
these sources is more efficient than spelling out definitions and
requirements throughout these documents and the statutes and
regulations provide the basis for applicable registration requirements.
Inserting language from the statutes or regulations would require
changes to the MCSA-1 Form and/or Instructions whenever modifications
were made to the statutory or regulatory language. However, in the
interest of making the instructions easier to understand, the Agency
has included additional clarifications wherever feasible.
NTSB Recommendation H-11-1: Collecting Additional Cargo Tank
Information
    As noted in the SNPRM, in 2009 the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), as part of its accident report concerning a 2009 crash
involving a cargo tank vehicle, recommended that FMCSA revise the MCS-
150 Form to require HM carriers to report the number of types of USDOT
specification cargo tanks (i.e., cargo tank vehicles designed and self-
certified by the vehicle manufacturer as meeting the applicable PHMSA
standards for use in transporting HM) owned or leased by the carriers
and provide other pertinent data displayed on the specification plates
of such tanks (Recommendation H-11-1).\62\ NTSB recommended that FMCSA
require this information to be updated annually. In the SNPRM, the
Agency sought comments on this NTSB recommendation.\63\ NTTC quoted
this NTSB recommendation, noting that NTSB recommended that data be
collected from all intrastate and interstate carriers. No other
commenter addressed NTSB Recommendation H-11-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/HAR1101.html
(last accessed July 30, 2012).
    \63\ See 76 FR 66506, 66522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response. The FMCSA acknowledges the intent of the NTSB
recommendation but the Agency has opted not to include a requirement in
the URS final rule for the collection of the cargo tank vehicle
information recommended by the NTSB. Based on FMCSA's experience
working with PHMSA and the cargo tank industry to address safety
issues, and our understanding of the role of crash investigations or
inquiries in identifying likely causes or contributing factors of
crashes and HM incidents, the Agency does not need the cargo tank
vehicle data in question.
    First, the fact that a specification cargo tank vehicle was
involved in a recordable crash would not in and of itself trigger a
need for industry-wide tank vehicle data. In the absence of a crash or
incident involving the unintended release of HM, and a subsequent
investigation of the cause of the release of the material, the
industry-wide data would serve only as a census of cargo tank vehicles
used to transport HM. This census would not cover tank vehicles used to
transport other materials even though such vehicles would be
susceptible to crashes. FMCSA would know the total number of
specification tank vehicles in use but there would be little if any
analytical value concerning the risks of future crashes. FMCSA notes
that through its existing motor carrier reporting requirements, which
are continued through this rulemaking, the Agency has access to
information on the identity of interstate motor carriers transporting
HM in quantities requiring placards, which includes the interstate
carriers operating specification cargo tank vehicles that are the
subject of the NTSB's interest.
    Second, if there is a crash or incident involving the unintentional
release of HM and the investigation or inquiry suggests that a design,
fabrication, or maintenance issue may have contributed to the release
of the HM, FMCSA and PHMSA already have the tools needed to effectively
address the issue(s) without imposing a new information collection
burden on the transportation industry. If there is a concern that a
cargo tank vehicle from a specific manufacturer may not comply with
PHMSA's standards, the

subsequent investigation would determine whether the problem is with
the fabrication and/or maintenance of the specific tank vehicle
involved in the crash or incident; involves multiple cargo tank
vehicles produced by the same manufacturer; involves multiple cargo
tanks serviced by the same repair facility; involves multiple cargo
tanks operated by the same carrier; or, involves multiple
manufacturers' cargo tanks in the specification series. The Department
does not need the information collection for these scenarios to address
the issue because FMCSA and PHMSA would work with the cargo tank
manufacturers and repair facilities to take appropriate actions to
resolve the safety concerns. FMCSA and PHMSA would work with the
manufacturers and repair facilities involved to gather up-to-date
information on how many specification tank vehicles had been sold or
serviced and which customers were operating those vehicles.
    In the event the investigation suggests flaws with one or more
manufacturers' specification tank vehicle series, the agencies would
work together to inform the cargo tank industry (manufacturers,
registered repair facilities, and carriers) and the enforcement
community of the problem and what actions should be taken to address
the problem. For example, FMCSA could issue a safety bulletin or alert,
or publish a Federal Register notice announcing the discovery of the
non-compliant tanks. The Agency has taken a similar action in the past
to alert carriers to safety problems and to direct them to immediately
discontinue use of the unsafe cargo tanks until repairs and
recertification were completed.
    And, if necessary, the agencies would work together to determine
what regulatory actions may need to be considered to provide a long-
term solution. As with the previous scenarios, the NTSB's recommended
information collection burden would not have provided any practical
information useful in addressing the problem.
    If there is a problem with the actual regulatory standard for a
specification series, i.e., the manufacturers' tank designs conform to
the PHMSA standards in effect on the date of manufacture but the
standards for that series need to be upgraded, the collection of data
does not help FMCSA and PHMSA because the agencies do not have a
practical means with which to address such problems short of conducting
a rulemaking to require or prohibit certain actions by manufacturers,
repair facilities, and carriers. At the point the agencies consider a
rulemaking, FMCSA and PHMSA could query the vehicle manufacturers to
obtain cargo tank vehicle data needed to support the preparation of
rulemaking documents. The information collection burden recommended by
the NTSB would therefore be unnecessary.
    For the reasons given above, the Agency excludes from the final
rule the collection of cargo tank data from motor carriers. The Agency
will formally notify the NTSB in writing to request closure of the
recommendation. NTTC's specific comment relating to URS applicability
to intrastate HM carriers was addressed in section V.D.2.
Other Comments About the MCSA-1 Form
Section A, MC, MX, and FF Number(s)
    MoDOT recommended that proposed question 10, in Section A of Form
MCSA-1 should be deleted if all entities registered under the URS are
to be identified solely by the USDOT Number. Proposed question 10
required the applicant to list MC, MX, and FF Number(s) (if updating).
    FMCSA Response. The Agency agrees with MoDOT and has removed
question 10 from Form MCSA-1 because regulated entities will be
identified solely by USDOT Number. However, applicants must disclose
MC, MX and FF Numbers concerning business relationships and
affiliations with other entities registered with FMCSA (or its
predecessor agencies) in response to question 43 of Form MCSA-1 because
the Agency will use the information to deter reincarnated carriers as
discussed in this section under ``Section K, Disclosure of
Relationships with other FMCSA-regulated Entities.''
Section A, Form of Business
    Proposed question 13 (Form of Business) in Section A asked an
applicant to indicate its form of business by checking all of the
following that apply: Sole Proprietor, Partnership, Limited Liability
Company, Corporation, or Unit of State or Local Government. MoDOT
recommended that FMCSA change the instruction for a Sole Proprietor.
MoDOT commented that under the IRS definition, ``[a] sole proprietor is
someone who runs an unincorporated business by himself or herself.''
The proposed instructions read ``Sole Proprietor--Individuals who
operate a business in their own name.'' MoDOT stated that this gives
the impression that more than one individual could be included as a
sole proprietor. Therefore, this commenter recommended that the
instruction be changed to read: ``Sole Proprietor--An individual who
operates a business in his or her own legal name.''
    MoDOT further recommended that question 13 include ``Limited
Liability Partnerships and Trusts'' as an option to check for form of
business. ATA questioned why question 13 (Form of Business) instructs
the applicant to ``select all that apply.'' This commenter asked how
more than one could apply.
    FMCSA Response. In response to MoDOT's request, the Agency added
the requested business forms, ``Limited Liability Partnerships'' and
``Trusts,'' as well as a data field marked ``Other'' for question 12
(formerly question 13). The instructions to question 12 include
definitions for ``Limited Liability Partnership'' and ``Trust'' and
instruct the applicant to use the data field marked ``Other'' to
indicate any business forms not listed on the application. The term
``Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)'' is defined as a ``partnership
in which some or all partners (depending on the jurisdiction) have
limited liability. In an LLP, no partner is responsible or liable
(directly or indirectly) for an obligation of the partnership due to
another partner's misconduct or negligence, thus shielding innocent
members of these partnerships from liability.''
    The term ``Trust'' is defined as a ``relationship whereby property
(real or personal, tangible or intangible) is transferred by one party
(settlor) to be held by another party (trustee) for the benefit of a
third party or parties (beneficiary(ies)). In effect, a trust is a
legal device designed to provide financial assistance or something of
value to someone without giving the person total control over the trust
assets. It may be revocable or irrevocable, express or implied. The
trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries (the beneficial
owners of the trust property) and is obligated to administer the trust
in accordance with both the terms of the trust and the governing law.''
    Additionally, the Agency has revised the definition of ``sole
proprietor'' in the Form MCSA-1 Instructions to read: ``An individual
who owns and operates a business normally in his or her legal name and
in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the
business. In some jurisdictions the proprietor can use a trade name or
business name other than his or her legal name, but the individual is
also required to file a `doing business as (dba)' statement with local
authorities. Every asset of the business is owned by the proprietor and
all debts of the business are his or hers as well.''

    Regarding the direction that applicants ``select all that apply,''
we agree with ATA that only one form of business or company structure
should apply here. Because the form of business or company structure
may vary, each legal entity should have its own USDOT Number
identifier. Accordingly, we have replaced the phrase ``select all that
apply'' on question 12 of the MCSA-1 Form with ``select the one
business form that applies.''
Section A, Gross Annual Revenue
    ATA commented that on page 8 of the proposed MCSA-1 Instructions,
and on page 3 of the proposed MCSA-1 Form, the applicant is to enter
its ``gross annual revenue'' (proposed Form MCSA-1 question 16). This
commenter stated that this is a new requirement not proposed in the
NPRM. ATA questioned what purpose such a requirement could serve. ATA
stated that private motor carriers are, by definition, engaged
primarily in businesses other than transportation, and many motor
carriers operate ancillary businesses as well. Further, ATA commented
that many businesses rightly regard gross revenue data as proprietary.
ATA asserted that a requirement to provide gross annual revenue is
unwarranted without a full explanation of a valid regulatory purpose,
which FMCSA has not provided. This commenter recommended that the MCSA-
1 Form remove the requirement to enter this information.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency has revised the Form MCSA-1 and
Instructions to no longer require information about an applicant's
``gross annual revenue.'' FMCSA, however, may revisit this issue in the
future.
Section B, Mileage
    MoDOT requested that FMCSA clarify the instruction for proposed
question 23 (Mileage) to make clear who reports the mileage of vehicles
owned by the applicant but leased by the applicant to another carrier,
versus vehicles leased by the applicant from others to use in the
applicant's business. The proposed instruction read: ``Estimate the
miles traveled by applicant's [CMVs] during the last calendar year. It
makes no difference if the CMVs were leased by the applicant or owned
by the applicant. . . .'' MoDOT commented that this proposed
instruction appears to cover all the vehicles owned by the applicant,
whether or not used by the applicant.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency agrees with MoDOT that the proposed
question 23 instruction (question 21 instruction in the final rule)
should be clarified to require reporting the mileage of all CMVs used
in the applicant's operations. The question 21 instruction has been
revised to read:

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

    The Agency has also similarly modified question 21 on the MCSA-1
Form. FMCSA has also eliminated the ``Calendar Year'' entry field from
the MCSA-1 Form because the Agency has decided to request carrier
mileage operated in the previous 12 months.
Section B, Number of Vehicles
    MoDOT requested that FMCSA add further information to the Form
MCSA-1 Instructions for question 24(a), which requires applicants to
list the number of vehicles with weights greater than or equal to
10,001 pounds that it will operate in the United States. This commenter
requested that the Agency make the instruction absolutely clear what
vehicles are to be counted and included in this section. For a motor
carrier that owns and leases some of its vehicles to other motor
carriers, MoDOT asked whether the owner or the lessee is responsible
for reporting those vehicles. MoDOT commented that without
clarification, vehicle counts may be reported twice, once by the owner
and once by the lessee.
    MoDOT also commented that while question 24(c) requires applicants
to list the number of vehicles with weights greater than or equal to
10,001 pounds that it will operate in interstate commerce, nothing in
the question 24(a) instructions indicates that vehicles listed under
24(a) include operations in intrastate and interstate commerce. This
commenter recommended that similar language be used within an item in
order to be consistent and to easily understand the difference between
questions 24(a) and 24(c). MoDOT commented that the proposed question
24 instructions were not clear and gave the impression that question
24(c) was requiring the total number of vehicles shown in (a), which it
may not be.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency agrees with MoDOT that the proposed
question 24 instructions may be confusing. For this reason, and for
other reasons explained below, the Agency is revising proposed question
24 (renumbered question 22 in the final rule) on both the Form MCSA-1
and on the Form MCSA-1 Instructions. As explained above in section
V.D.5, beginning on or about September 1, 2012, FMCSA discontinued
issuing USDOT Numbers to non-motor carrier leasing companies and such
companies would not fill out Form MCSA-1.
    When responding to renumbered question 22, applicants should
provide the number of each type of CMV that the company uses in its
U.S. operations broken out by the method used to acquire the vehicle
(owned, term-leased or trip-leased). Owned means the company holds
title to the CMV, term leased means the vehicle is leased for a
specific time period or term of contract, and trip leased means the CMV
is leased on a trip-by-trip basis as needed. If the company owns or
leases a school bus, mini-bus, passenger van, or limousine, then it
would indicate the number of each type of passenger-carrying CMV (by
its passenger-carrying capacity) that is owned, term leased or trip
leased. For passenger-carrying vehicles, it would count the driver as a
passenger when determining a vehicle's passenger-carrying capacity.
    The Agency amends renumbered question 22 on the Form MCSA-1 and
Instructions by adding a section (d) to require applicants to provide
the number of vehicles that are operated or will be operated solely in
intrastate commerce, while section (c) continues to require applicants
to provide the number of vehicles that operate interstate. The
instructions to question 22(a) (proposed question 24(a)) have been
clarified to explain that a CMV is ``operated'' for purposes of this
question ``if the vehicle is registered under Federal or State law, or
both, in the name of the carrier, or is controlled by the carrier under
a trip lease or long-term lease agreement (more than 30 days) during
any given year. If a freight forwarder operates CMVs, it is also
required to enter its fleet size on the MCSA-1 Form. Both a motor
carrier and a freight forwarder (if operating CMVs) must include the
number of CMVs operated under a trip lease or long-term lease agreement
in their fleet size determinations.''
Section K, Administrative Filings Information
    MoDOT recommended that FMCSA delete within Section K any
information concerning the insurance company and the filing of
financial responsibility; the name of the insurance company; policy
number, date issued, etc. (proposed question 44). MoDOT also
recommended that FMCSA delete the requirement to document within the
MCSA-1 Form whether the Designation of Agents for Service of Process
Form (BOC-3) is on file or will be filed

(proposed question 46). With respect to both of these recommendations,
MoDOT commented that the information on file with the Agency should be
sufficient proof and documentation to determine if the applicant is in
compliance with the financial responsibility and process agent filing
requirements. This commenter reasoned that if the responses to
questions 44 and 46 were inconsistent with the filings received,
someone would be required to intervene and question the validity of the
application.
    FMCSA Response. FMCSA is retaining proposed question 44 relating to
financial responsibility on the MCSA-1 Form (renumbered as question 42
in the final rule) because the information provided is useful in
identifying, at the application stage, unsafe carriers that attempt to
``reincarnate'' as new carriers. However, URS will not prevent an
applicant that does not yet have this information from completing an
application. FMCSA has removed proposed question 46 from the MCSA-1
Form because providing a simple confirmation that an applicant has
submitted the BOC-3 Form to the Agency does not provide any useful
information that the Agency does not already have.
Section K, Disclosure of Relationships With Other FMCSA-Regulated
Entities
    MoDOT also recommended that FMCSA remove column 2, in Section K,
proposed question 45. Proposed question 45 would require an applicant
to disclose all relationships that it has had (currently or in the past
three years) with other FMCSA-regulated entities. The blank table
requires an applicant to list the following information about such
relationships: USDOT Number, MC/MX/FF number, company's name, and
company's latest USDOT safety rating (as columns 1, 2, 3, and 5,
respectively). MoDOT noted that the MC/MX/FF numbers will be superseded
by the USDOT Number.
    ATA commented that the instructions for question 45 regarding the
reporting of affiliations were unclear. ATA requested clarification of
what ``affiliation'' means in this context: ``Is it the narrow, highly
technical signification of the federal tax regulations, or some other
meaning? At its broadest, the word can mean any business, familial, or
personal connection whatever.''
    FMCSA Response. The Agency is retaining column 2 in proposed
question 45 (renumbered as question 43) on the MCSA-1 Form, as
proposed. The MC/MX/FF number information is necessary for FMCSA to
preserve within the URS registration record for an entity all
historical information relating to the MC/MX/FF number. For example, if
a motor carrier transfers its operating authority to another person,
the transferor's historical information associated with the MC number
would be recorded in the URS registration record for the transferee.
This erects another barrier to reincarnated carriers.
    As for the instructions to this question and the term
``affiliation,'' FMCSA is incorporating the language of sec. 32105 of
MAP-21 in defining ``affiliation.'' Under this section, an applicant
for a USDOT Number must disclose any past or current relationship,
through common ownership, common management, common control, or common
familial relationship to any other person or applicant for registration
who was determined to be unfit, unwilling, or unable to comply with
applicable regulatory requirements during the 3-year period before the
date of the filing of the application. The MCSA-1 Instructions for
question 43 have been modified to reflect the MAP-21 requirement.
Comments About MCSA-1 Instructions
Instructions for Reasons To File
    ATA commented that on page 4 of the proposed instructions, under
the information provided about the ``New Entrant Reapplication'' reason
for filing, the last two sentences are confusing and perhaps
contradictory. On the proposed Form MCSA-1 Instructions, these
sentences read: ``If the motor carrier failed to schedule a New Entrant
Safety Audit, did not appear for a safety audit, or failed a safety
audit and did not submit corrective actions, the motor carrier must
start the process from the beginning. If the motor carrier failed the
safety audit, it must also demonstrate that it has corrected the
deficiencies that resulted in revocation of its registration.''
(emphasis in proposed language).
    FMCSA Response. The Agency has renumbered the ``Reasons to File''
listed in the Instructions to the MCSA-1 to be consistent with how they
are listed on the Form MCSA-1. In both documents, ``New Entrant
Reapplication'' is the second option under ``Reasons to File.'' There
is a $300.00 fee for this transaction.
    The language is not contradictory in that a new entrant whose USDOT
registration has been revoked and whose operations have been placed out
of service by FMCSA may re-apply for USDOT registration but must wait
until 30 days after the date of revocation to do so. If revocation
resulted from the new entrant's failure to schedule or submit to a
safety audit, the new entrant must file an updated Form MCSA-1, pay the
$300.00 filing fee, pass a safety audit and re-start the 18-month
safety monitoring program commencing from the date the application is
approved. But if revocation resulted from the fact that the new entrant
failed the safety audit, the new entrant must do all of the following:
File an updated Form MCSA-1; pay the $300.00 filing fee; provide
evidence of corrective action; and re-start the 18-month safety
monitoring program commencing from the date the application is
approved. If the new entrant is a for-hire motor carrier subject to
chapter 139 and also has its operating authority revoked, it must re-
apply for operating authority as set forth in part 365. If revocation
was based on the new entrant's failure to file the minimum amounts of
financial responsibility or designate agents for service of process, it
must also complete administrative filings as well in the reapplication
process. The instructions for the new entrant reapplication ``Reason to
File'' have been expanded to include this additional explanation.
Biennial Update Instructions
    ATA suggested that the Form MCSA-1 should state plainly, and as
often as may be helpful, that while an applicant is required to update
its data every 24 months, it may do so as often as it likes. This
commenter stated that the PRISM Program effectively requires annual
updates, a discrepancy that continues to confuse many carriers.
    FMCSA Response. In response to ATA's suggestion, the Agency has
added the statement ``An entity may also update its record with FMCSA
at any time within this 24-month period'' to the Form MCSA-1
Instructions' explanation of the Biennial Update reason for filing.
Instructions for Agency Notification in the Event of Change in
Ownership, Management, or Control
    ATA commented that on page 5 of the proposed Form MCSA-1
Instructions, at the top, there is a remnant of the 2005 NPRM's
proposed requirement that a carrier must notify FMCSA within 20 days of
any change in ownership, management or control. ATA recommended that
this language be deleted from the Instructions.
    FMCSA Response. The Form MCSA-1 Instructions have been modified to
remove the requirement that a carrier must notify FMCSA within 20 days
of any change in ownership, management or control. However, the Agency
is requiring, in 49 CFR 365.405 and

390.201(d)(5), that the parties involved in any transaction that
results in the transfer of an entity's operating authority must report
the transfer to FMCSA on Form MCSA-1 within 30 days of consummation of
the transaction. A new ``reason for filing'' category has been added to
the Form MCSA-1 for this purpose titled ``Notification of Transfers of
Operating Authority.'' Both the transferor and transferee will be
required to submit the MCSA-1 Form to ensure that a transfer of
operating authority actually occurred. FMCSA needs this information to
help it identify potential churning of operating authority by entities
who seek to avoid an unfavorable regulatory compliance history by
purchasing another company or its operating authority.
Section A Instructions, Addresses
    ATA commented that on pages 5 and 6 of the instructions, some of
the requirements with respect to the applicant's name and address seem
arbitrary. This commenter recommended that the Instructions not state
so definitely that a ``terminal address'' is not acceptable. ATA stated
that many trucking companies' headquarters offices may, in effect, be
terminals, and asked which address these companies are to use if the
use of a terminal address is prohibited.
    This commenter further questioned why the Instructions indicate
that a post office box is prohibited for a mailing address, if a
company provides a physical location for the principal place of
business. ATA commented that many of the smallest trucking companies
operate almost wholly out of a vehicle, and that the use of any
physical address to receive mail may involve a lack of security for
such companies, not to mention inconvenience. This commenter noted that
the current Form MCS-150 does not prohibit P.O. boxes.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency has revised the MCSA-1 Instructions in
line with these recommendations, and has clarified the FMCSA's use of
each address. In particular, FMCSA has removed the prohibition against
providing post office boxes as a mailing address because the Agency
will only conduct on-site visits (when necessary) at the principal
place of business address, which may not be a post office box. The
instructions also will no longer prohibit the use of a terminal address
for principal place of business as long as the address meets the
definition of a principal place of business.
Section B Instructions, Driveaway-Towaway Operations
    MoDOT requested that FMCSA provide a specific definition and
instructions concerning driveaway-towaway operations. This commenter
stated that the current MCS-150 Form requires an entry for the number
of vehicles owned by the motor carrier even though the company may not
own any motor vehicles when all the power units driven are considered
cargo. MoDOT asked how companies that perform this service complete
Form MCSA-1, which sections apply to them, and how they must report or
not report the number of vehicles.
    FMCSA Response. A new applicant filing to conduct driveaway-towaway
operations is a motor carrier and must complete section A, B, K, N, and
P of Form MCSA-1. Under section B, question 20 (formerly question 22),
that motor carrier would select ``driveaway-towaway'' as Cargo Type and
report mileage in question 21 (formerly question 23). Under question
22(a) (formerly 24(a)), the number of vehicles used in the towaway
operation must be reported. Because driveaway operations involve
operation of an unladen or empty vehicle that is not owned or leased by
the motor carrier, question 22(a) would not apply. So a motor carrier
that engages exclusively in driveaway operations would not be required
to enter vehicle information in question 22(a).
    The instructions for section B, question 22(a) now include a
statement that ``the number of vehicles does not need to be reported
for driveaway operations,'' which reflects the definition for
``driveaway-towaway'' found in Sec.  390.5.
    This definition was added to the MCSA-1 Instructions under question
15 (Operation Classification). Form MCSA-1, section B, question 22(a)
(formerly question 24(a)) includes ``towaway'' in the breakout of
vehicle types since the number of vehicles will need to be reported for
these operations.

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This rule amends 49 CFR part 360 in reference to fees; part 365
procedures governing applications for operating authority and transfers
of operating authority; part 366 procedures for designations of process
agents; part 368 procedures governing applications to operate in
municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico
international border or within the commercial zones of such
municipalities; part 385 safety fitness procedures; part 387 levels of
financial responsibility; part 390 general applicability of the FMCSRs
and part 392 regarding the driving of commercial motor vehicles.

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

    The Agency revises part 360 as proposed in the SNPRM. Section 360.1
sets out fees for registration-related services, such as records
searches, copying, and certification. It also specifies that no service
fees under this section will be charged to a Federal agency; a State or
local government; or any representative of a motor carrier, motor
private carrier, leasing company, broker, or freight forwarder
accessing information related to the entity for the individual use of
such entity.
    Section 360.3 sets out the filing fees. This section also addresses
the appropriate manner of payment, and the conditions under which an
entity may receive or request a waiver or reduction of filing fees. As
in current Sec.  360.3, this section also indicates that separate
filing fees are required for each type of authority sought in each
transportation mode, such as broker authority for motor property
carriers. A separate filing fee is also required for the filing of
applications for 120-day temporary operating authority when there is a
national emergency or natural disaster, regardless of whether such
application is related to an application for corresponding permanent
operating authority. FMCSA is retaining the existing fees for self-
insurance pending consideration of changes in these fees in a separate
rulemaking.
    Section 360.5 specifies the procedure FMCSA will follow if the
Agency determines it is necessary to update the URS user fees.

B. Part 365, Rules Governing Applications for Operating Authority

    FMCSA revises Sec.  365.101(a) and 365.101(h) to remove references
to ``common'' and ``contract'' carriers because section 4303(c) of
SAFETEA-LU required the Agency to discontinue designating operating
authority as ``common'' or ``contract'' carriage.\64\ FMCSA removes and
reserves Sec.  365.103 relating to a modified procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 49 U.S.C. 13902(f), as amended by SAFETEA-LU, section
4303(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency amends Sec.  365.105, Starting the application process:
Form MCSA-1, FMCSA Registration/Update (USDOT Number--Operating
Authority Application), to replace references to obsolete OP series
forms with ``Form MCSA-1'' and to reduce the number of operational
categories from six to three

so it is clear that the fee for operating authority applies only to the
general categories of motor carrier, broker, and freight forwarder, and
not to each individual subgroup of these categories listed in Section
A, questions 15a, 15b, 15c, and 15d of Form MCSA-1.
    Revised Sec.  365.107, Types of applications, replaces references
to OP series forms with ``Form MCSA-1.'' FMCSA has also removed
obsolete references to common and contract carriage in Sec.  365.107,
as required by SAFETEA-LU. Under Sec.  365.107(e), the Agency will
grant temporary operating authority only in cases of national emergency
or natural disaster, and following an emergency declaration under 49
CFR 390.23, Relief from regulations. Entities granted temporary
operating authority will need to file evidence of financial
responsibility with FMCSA.
    The Agency revises Sec.  365.109, Review of the application, to
require new filings of both evidence of financial responsibility and
designation of agents for service of process to be completed within 90
days of the date that the notice of application is published in the
FMCSA Register. As explained in the SNPRM, the 90-day time period
combines the existing 20-day initial deadline and 60-day extension
period and adds 10 more days for Agency processing. FMCSA has also
removed the phrase in current Sec.  365.109(b) that indicates that the
FMCSA Register publication of a summary of an application is considered
``a preliminary grant of authority.'' Instead, Sec.  365.109(b) now
indicates that a summary of the application will be published in the
FMCSA Register to give notice to the public in case anyone wishes to
oppose the application.
    FMCSA adds new Sec.  365.110, Need to complete New Entrant Safety
Assurance Program, which specifies that operating authority does not
become permanent until the applicant satisfactorily completes the New
Entrant Safety Assurance Program in 49 CFR part 385, subpart D. The
Agency revises Sec.  365.111, Appeals to rejections of the application,
to provide the address and appropriate FMCSA office to which an
applicant should address an appeal when its application is rejected.
The Agency revises Sec.  365.119, Opposed applications, to specify that
parties opposing an application are required to send a copy of their
protests to both the applicant and FMCSA, that all protests must
include statements made under oath, and that there are no personal
appearances or formal hearings where there are protests to
applications.
    The Agency revises Sec.  365.201, Definitions, to remove the
reference to ``permanent authority.'' Section 365.201 now reads: ``A
person wishing to oppose a request for operating authority files a
protest. A person filing a valid protest is known as a protestant.''
The Agency revises Sec.  365.203, Time for filing, to provide the
address and appropriate FMCSA office to which a person should address a
protest. FMCSA removes and reserves Sec.  365.301, Applicable rules, in
49 CFR part 365, subpart C, General Rules Governing the Application
Process, because applications for operating authority are not subject
to the Agency's Rules of Practice in 49 CFR part 386.
    As explained above in section V.I, the Agency revises subpart D of
part 365 of title 49 CFR, Transfers of Operating Authority. Although
FMCSA proposed to remove most of this subpart in the SNPRM, the Agency
has since determined that the public interest necessitates requiring
non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders to
notify FMCSA of transactions that may directly or indirectly result in
the transfer or lease of their operating authority. The Agency will no
longer accept or review requests for transfers of operating authority.
However, FMCSA believes that it is necessary to carry forward the
reporting aspects of the regulations governing these transactions. See
section V.I above for a discussion of these changes.
    In 49 CFR part 365, subpart E, Special Rules for Certain Mexico-
domiciled Carriers, the Agency amends Sec.  365.507, FMCSA action on
the application, to no longer permit an applicant to submit a hard copy
of Form BOC-3 (Designation of Agents--Motor Carriers, Brokers and
Freight Forwarders); an applicant or its process agent company must
electronically file Form BOC-3. As discussed in section V.G.1 above,
FMCSA revises Sec.  365.509, Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in
applicant information, to require an applicant to notify FMCSA within
30 days of any change or correction to the information in parts I, IA
or II of Form OP-1(MX) or in Form BOC-3 during the application process
or after having been granted provisional operating authority. The
regulations previously contained a 45-day notification requirement, but
this has been changed to 30 days in order to be consistent with similar
notification requirements applicable to entities subject to the URS.

C. Part 366, Designation of Process Agent

    The Agency amends Sec.  366.1, Applicability, to include private
and exempt for-hire motor carriers and freight forwarders among those
entities that are required to acquire the services of process agents
and file proof of designations with FMCSA. Effective April 25, 2016,
Sec.  366.2, Form of designation, is amended to specify a 180-day grace
period (from the final rule compliance date) for all existing private
and exempt for-hire motor carriers to file process agent designations.
FMCSA makes minor revisions to Sec.  366.3, Eligible persons, to make
the reference to State officials gender neutral. The Agency revises
Sec.  366.4, Required States, to specify that every motor carrier must
designate process agents for all 48 contiguous States and the District
of Columbia, unless its operating authority registration is limited to
fewer than 48 States and DC, in which case it must designate process
agents for each State in which it is authorized to operate and for each
State traversed during such operations. Although this exception was not
proposed in the SNPRM, the Agency has determined that it is necessary
because while property carriers are given nationwide authority,
passenger carriers operating over regular routes (particularly
governmental entities) may have geographically-limited operating
authority. FMCSA also adds a paragraph 366.4(c), which indicates that
every freight forwarder must make a designation for each State in which
its offices are located or in which contracts will be written.
    The Agency revises Sec.  366.5, Blanket designations, to specify
that brokers and freight forwarders (in addition to motor carriers) may
make the required designation of process agents by specifying the name
of an association or corporation that has filed a list of process
agents for each State with FMCSA. As discussed in sections III.B.7 and
V.G.4 above, the Agency revises Sec.  366.6, Cancellation or change, to
clarify that the process agent or blanket agent, in addition to the
motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder, may cancel or change a
process agent designation by filing a new designation with FMCSA
(366.6(a)). To help ensure that such designations are up-to-date, Sec.
366.6(b) requires that changes to designations be reported to FMCSA
within 30 days of the change. In response to public comments, the
Agency has added, in Sec.  366.6(c), a new requirement that a motor
carrier, broker or freight forwarder report changes in name, address,
or contact information to its process agents and/or the company making
a blanket designation on its behalf within 30 days of the change.
Finally, the Agency adds Sec.  366.6(d) to

require process agents and blanket agents who file process agent
designations on behalf of motor carriers, brokers, and freight
forwarders to report to FMCSA terminations of their contracts with
regulated entities within 30 days of the termination. If process agents
and/or blanket agents do not keep their information up to date, FMCSA
may withdraw their authority to make process agent designations.

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

    FMCSA revises Sec.  368.3, Applying for a certificate of
registration, to replace obsolete references to the OP-2 and MCS-150
forms with references to ``Form MCSA-1.'' The Agency revises Sec.
368.4, Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in applicant information,
to require applicants to notify the Agency within 30 days of any
changes or corrections to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1.
The revisions to this section also replace obsolete form references
with references to ``Form MCSA-1.'' FMCSA revises Sec.  368.8, Appeals,
to change the Agency office to which applicants should address an
appeal to a denial of an application.

E. Part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures

    In 49 CFR part 385, subpart D, New Entrant Safety Assurance
Program, the Agency revises Sec.  385.301, What is a motor carrier
required to do before beginning interstate operations?, to specify that
all for-hire motor carriers must obtain operating authority in addition
to registering and obtaining a USDOT Number, unless they are
exclusively providing transportation that is exempt from the commercial
registration requirement in 49 U.S.C. chapter 139. FMCSA also revises
this section to reference the new registration procedures in 49 CFR
part 390 in addition to the instructions for obtaining operating
authority located in 49 CFR part 365. This revised section also
clarifies that, although the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program
regulations of subpart D do not apply to Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers, such carriers must register with FMCSA by following the
procedures described in 49 CFR parts 365, 368, and 390.
    The Agency revises Sec.  385.303, How does a motor carrier register
with the FMCSA?, to reference the new Form MCSA-1. The Agency revises
Sec.  385.305, What happens after the FMCSA receives a request for new
entrant registration?, to specify in paragraph (c) that upon completion
of the application form, the new entrant will be issued an inactive
USDOT Number, and that an applicant may not begin operations nor mark a
CMV with the USDOT Number until after the date of the Agency's written
notice that the USDOT Number has been activated. The Agency also
revises this section to specify that violators of this section may be
subject to penalties under Sec.  392.9b(b), and to replace a reference
to the obsolete Form MCS-150 with the new Form MCSA-1. Finally,
paragraph (d) of this section is being revised to reference new Sec.
390.201(b) and add a new paragraph heading to improve the reader's
understanding of the section.
    FMCSA revises Sec.  385.329, May a new entrant that has had its
USDOT new entrant registration revoked and its operations placed out of
service reapply?, to replace references to obsolete Form MCS-150 with
references to Form MCSA-1. The Agency also revises this section to
specify that if the new entrant is a for-hire motor carrier subject to
the registration provisions of 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 and also had its
operating authority revoked, it must re-apply for operating authority
as set forth in Sec.  390.201(b) and 49 CFR part 365.
    In 49 CFR part 385, subpart E, Hazardous Materials Safety Permits,
the Agency revises Sec.  385.405, How does a motor carrier apply for a
safety permit?, to replace references to obsolete forms with references
to Form MCSA-1. FMCSA also revises this section to specify that a motor
carrier holding an HMSP must report to the Agency any change in the
information on Form MCSA-1 within 30 days of the change. FMCSA revises
Sec. Sec.  385.409, 385.419, and 385.421 to replace references to
obsolete forms with references to Form MCSA-1.
    In 49 CFR part 385, subpart H, Special Rules for New Entrant Non-
North America-Domiciled Carriers, the Agency revises Sec.  385.603,
Application, to replace references to obsolete forms with references to
Form MCSA-1. The Agency revises Sec.  385.607, FMCSA action on the
application, to indicate that the Form BOC-3 (Designation of Agents--
Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders) may only be submitted
electronically. FMCSA revises Sec.  385.609, Requirement to notify
FMCSA of change in applicant information, to indicate that motor
carriers subject to this subpart must notify the Agency of any changes
or corrections to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1 that
occur in the application process or after the motor carrier has been
granted new entrant registration within 30 days of the change.
    In 49 CFR part 385, subpart I, Safety Monitoring System for Non-
North American Carriers, the Agency revises Sec.  385.713, Reapplying
for new entrant registration, to replace references to obsolete Form
MCS-150 with references to Form MCSA-1. This revised section will also
clarify that if the new entrant is a for-hire carrier subject to the
registration provisions under 49 U.S.C. 13901 and also has had its
operating authority revoked, it must reapply for operating authority as
set forth in 49 CFR part 365 and in new Sec.  390.201(b).

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

    In 49 CFR part 387, subpart A, Motor Carriers of Property, the
Agency adds Sec.  387.19 to specify that insurers of exempt for-hire
and private motor carriers that transport HM in interstate commerce
must file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities
and agreements with FMCSA electronically in accordance with the
requirements and procedures set forth in Sec.  387.323, Electronic
filing of surety bonds, trust fund agreements, certificates of
insurance and cancellations.
    In 49 CFR part 387, subpart B, Motor Carriers of Passengers, FMCSA
revises Sec.  387.33, Financial responsibility, minimum levels, by
adding a paragraph (b) to clarify the specific URS registration and
financial responsibility obligations for FTA grantees who receive
grants under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, or 5311. In particular, this section
specifies that the minimum level of financial responsibility for a
motor vehicle used by such a carrier to provide transportation services
within a transit service area located in more than one State must be
the highest level required for any of the States in which it operates.
This section clarifies that this requirement also applies to transit
service providers who operate in only one State but interline with
other passenger carriers that provide interstate transportation within
or outside the transit service area. This section specifies that these
transit service providers must register as for-hire passenger carriers
under 49 CFR parts 365 and 390, identify the State(s) in which they
operate under the applicable grants, and certify on their registration
that they have in effect financial responsibility levels in an amount
equal to or greater than the highest level required by any of the
States in which they are operating under a qualifying grant.

    FMCSA adds Sec.  387.43, Electronic filing of surety bonds, trust
fund agreements, certificates of insurance and cancellations, to
specify that insurers of for-hire motor carriers of passengers must
file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and
agreements electronically in accordance with the requirements and
procedures set forth in Sec.  387.323, Electronic filing of surety
bonds, trust fund agreements, certificates of insurance and
cancellations. Section 387.43 also specifies that this section does not
apply to Mexico-domiciled passenger motor carriers, which are excepted
from the Sec.  387.31(b) requirement that policies of insurance, surety
bonds, and endorsements to satisfy the financial responsibility minimum
requirements must remain in effect continuously.
    In 49 CFR part 387, subpart C, Surety Bonds and Policies of
Insurance for Motor Carriers and Property Brokers, the Agency revises
Sec.  387.301, Surety bond, certificates of insurance, or other
securities, to remove obsolete references to common and contract
carriers, as required by SAFETEA-LU. Regarding Sec.  387.303, Security
for the protection of the public: Minimum limits, as explained in
section V.G.2 above, FMCSA adds a new subparagraph 387.303(b)(1)(iii)
to clarify that the minimum level of financial responsibility for a
motor vehicle used by an FTA grantee motor carrier to provide
transportation services within a transit service area located in more
than one State must be the highest level required for any of the States
in which it operates. This new subparagraph also reiterates the other
financial responsibility clarifications described above in the
discussion of Sec.  387.33. Although FMCSA proposed in the SNPRM to
revise Sec.  387.303 to restore a previously removed provision and to
remove obsolete references to effective dates in Sec.  387.303(b)(2), a
recently issued FMCSA technical amendment made these changes. These
changes restored a provision that established minimum public liability
limits of $300,000 for fleets that consist only of vehicles with Gross
Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) of under 10,000 pounds, except that
10,000 pounds was changed to 10,001 pounds to be consistent with the
statutory definition of CMV. Because these changes were made in a
recently issued technical amendment, the Agency is not making those
changes in this final rule.
    The Agency also revises Sec. Sec.  387.313, Forms and procedures;
387.323, Electronic filing of surety bonds, trust fund agreements,
certificates of insurance and cancellation; 387.413, Forms and
procedures; and 387.419, Electronic filing of surety bonds,
certificates of insurance and cancellations, to clarify that electronic
filing is mandatory and not optional. In 49 CFR part 387, subpart D,
Surety Bonds and Policies of Insurance for Freight Forwarders, FMCSA
revises Sec.  387.403, General requirements, to expand freight
forwarder BI&PD insurance requirements to all freight forwarders
performing transfer, collection, or delivery service. As explained in
the SNPRM, under the current regulations, only HHG freight forwarders
performing transfer, collection, or delivery service are subject to a
BI&PD insurance requirement. These regulations were transferred without
changes from the Interstate Commerce Commission following enactment of
the ICCTA. However, although the ICCTA expanded the Agency's
jurisdiction over freight forwarders, which had been previously limited
to HHG freight forwarders, to all freight forwarders, the regulations
were not amended to reflect the Agency's broadened jurisdiction. FMCSA
believes there is no basis for limiting the BI&PD insurance requirement
to HHG freight forwarders.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ A technical amendment has also been made to insert the
phrase ``transfer, collection, or delivery service'' in place of
``transfer, collection, and delivery service'' to conform with the
statutory language at 49 U.S.C. 13906(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Agency revises Sec.  390.3, General applicability, to remove
references to Sec.  390.19. In paragraph 390.3(g)(4), a reference to
Sec.  390.19(a)(1) has been replaced with a reference to Sec.  390.201.
Paragraph 390.3(h), Intermodal equipment providers, is revised to
remove reference to a December 2009 compliance date. The Agency adds
paragraphs 390.3(i) and 390.3(j) to reference the safety regulations
that are applicable to brokers and freight forwarders required to
register with FMCSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter 139. The Agency adds
paragraph 390.3(k) to specify that the rules in 49 CFR part 390,
subpart E, Unified Registration System, apply to each cargo tank and
cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer, assembler, repairer, inspector,
tester, and design certifying engineer that is subject to registration
requirements under 49 CFR 107.502 and 49 U.S.C. 5108.
    The Agency revises the definition of ``exempt motor carrier'' in
Sec.  390.5, Definitions, to mean ``a person engaged in transportation
exempt from economic regulation by the [FMCSA] under 49 U.S.C. chapter
135,'' rather than under 49 U.S.C. 13506, as specified in the current
regulation because not all the statutory exemptions in chapter 135 are
contained within section 13506.
    FMCSA makes changes to Sec.  390.19 in two phases. First, effective
November 1, 2013, the Agency amends Sec.  390.19 by adding a new
paragraph (b)(4), which states that anyone failing to comply with the
biennial update requirement is subject to civil penalties. As explained
above, FMCSA determined that enforcement of the biennial update
requirement through the imposition of civil penalties is so important
that the date for this provision will occur as soon as possible.
    In the second phase of Sec.  390.19 changes, which are effective on
the main compliance date for the rule, October 23, 2015, FMCSA revises
Sec.  390.19, Motor carrier identification reports for certain Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers, to specify that only Mexico-domiciled long-
haul carriers must file Form MCS-150 with FMCSA.\66\ These carriers
must file Form MCS-150 before they begin operations and an update every
24 months. This provision continues to allow the MCS-150 to be
submitted to the agency via hard copy. Paragraph 390.19(e) instructs
these carriers to submit the Form MCS-150 along with their application
for operating authority (OP-1(MX)). Paragraph 390.19(h)(2) specifies
that a Mexico-domiciled long-haul carrier must pass the pre-
authorization safety audit under Sec.  365.507, and that the Agency
will not issue a USDOT Number until expiration of the protest period
provided in Sec.  365.115 and--if a protest is received--after FMCSA
denies or rejects the protest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Effective on the main compliance date for this final rule,
the biennial update requirement and accompanying civil penalties
provision are applicable to the new Form MCSA-1 in addition to the
MCS-150. Effective October 23, 2015, the biennial update requirement
for the Form MCSA-1 is located at Sec.  390.201, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA amends Sec.  390.21, which addresses the marking of CMVs and
intermodal equipment, by revising subparagraph (b)(1) to reference new
Form MCSA-1 in addition to Form MCS-150 when specifying the name of the
carrier that must appear in a vehicle marking because Mexico-domiciled
long-haul carriers are not included in the URS and will continue to use
the Form MCS-150 when this rule is implemented. Specifically, the
Agency revises Sec.  390.21(b)(1) to state that the marking information
must display the ``legal name or a single trade name of the motor
carrier operating the self-

propelled CMV, as listed on the Form MCSA-1 or the motor carrier
identification report (Form MCS-150) and submitted in accordance with
Sec.  390.201 or Sec.  390.19, as appropriate.'' The Agency revises
Sec.  390.40, What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers
have under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts
350-399)?, to replace a reference to obsolete Form MCS-150C with a
reference to Form MCSA-1.
    FMCSA adds a new subpart E, Unified Registration System, which
includes Sec. Sec.  390.201 through 390.209. Section 390.201, USDOT
Registration, establishes the general requirement for all regulated
entities, except Mexico-domiciled long-haul carriers, to obtain USDOT
registration by electronically filing Form MCSA-1 and to provide FMCSA
biennial updates to the registration information.
    Paragraph 390.201(c)(1) states that persons who fail to file Form
MCSA-1 before beginning operations, or who fail to file timely biennial
updates, are subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) or
49 U.S.C. 14901(a), as appropriate. Persons are also subject to civil
penalties if they furnish misleading information or make false
statements on Form MCSA-1.
    Paragraph 390.201(c)(2) provides for the issuance of an inactive
USDOT Number upon receipt and processing of Form MCSA-1, which will be
activated after completion of all applicable administrative filings. It
further states that an applicant may not begin operations until after
its USDOT Number has been activated.
    Paragraph 390.201(c)(3) requires that a carrier must display a
valid USDOT Number on each CMV. Motor carriers will not be required to
remove the obsolete numbers (e.g., MC) from their vehicles and those
numbers may be used for other purposes such as advertising or
marketing. However, FMCSA encourages carriers to omit these obsolete
numbers from new or repainted vehicles.
    Paragraphs 390.201(d)(2) and (d)(3) require biennial updates to be
filed on the last day of a specific month, which is determined based on
the last digit of the entity's USDOT Number. Paragraph 390.201(d)(4)
specifies that a registered entity must notify the Agency of a change
in legal name, form of business, or address within 30 days of the
change by filing an updated Form MCSA-1. Paragraph 390.201(d)(5)
requires a person who obtains operating authority through a transfer,
as defined in part 365, subpart D, to notify FMCSA of the transfer
within 30 days of consummation of the transfer by filing an updated
Form MCSA-1, if the transferee had an existing USDOT number at the time
of the transfer, or a new Form MCSA-1 if the transferee did not have an
existing USDOT Number at the time of transfer. Paragraph 390.201(d)(5)
also requires the transferor to file a Form MCSA-1 indicating that it
has transferred its operating authority to the transferee. Both the
transferee and the transferor are also required to scan and submit a
copy of the operating authority that is being transferred. See section
V.I above for a discussion of these requirements. The filing of updated
information under either paragraph 390.201(d)(4) or 390.201(d)(5) does
not relieve a registered entity from the requirement to file an updated
Form MCSA-1 every 24 months in accordance with paragraph 390.201(d)(3).
    Section 390.203, PRISM State registration/biennial updates,
specifies that a motor carrier that registers its vehicles in a PRISM
Program State can satisfy the USDOT registration and biennial update
requirements in Sec.  390.201 by electronically filing the required
information with the State, provided the State has integrated the USDOT
registration/update capability into its vehicle registration program.
Section 390.205, Special requirements for registration, requires all
for-hire motor carriers, private motor carriers that transport HM in
interstate commerce, brokers, and freight forwarders to file evidence
of financial responsibility to receive USDOT registration. This section
also specifies that all motor carriers (both private and for-hire),
brokers, and freight forwarders required to register under the URS must
designate an agent for service of process pursuant to 49 CFR part 366.
    Section 390.207, Other governing regulations, lists and provides
cross-references to other governing regulations that are applicable to
those requesting USDOT registration. Section 390.209, Pre-authorization
safety audit, directs a non-North America-domiciled motor carrier that
requests authority to conduct interstate commerce within the United
States to Sec.  385.607(c) for detailed information about the
requirement to complete a pre-authorization safety audit as a pre-
condition for receiving USDOT registration.

H. Part 392, Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles

    Effective November 1, 2013, the Agency adds a new Sec.  392.9b,
Prohibited transportation, to prohibit a motor carrier with an inactive
DOT Number from operating a CMV and to notify carriers violating this
provision that they are subject to civil penalties in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 521.

VII. Regulatory Evaluation of the URS Final Rule: Summary of the
Calculation of Benefits and Costs \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Calculations presented in this section may by subject to
rounding errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the benefits and costs of the URS final rule,
including total net benefits, can be found in section III.C above. This
section summarizes the calculation of the costs and benefits for each
URS provision. FMCSA refers readers to the final Regulatory Evaluation,
which can be found in the docket, for the Agency's full discussion of
the analysis of benefits and costs of the URS.
    All costs and benefits were calculated over a 10-year period in
nominal dollars, restated in real 2010 dollars, and discounted to
present value using a rate of seven percent per Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) guidelines. A full discussion of the data used,
assumptions made, and calculations performed is in the Regulatory
Evaluation, which can be found in the public docket for the URS final
rule.

A. New Registration Fees Under the URS

    Currently, only non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, property
brokers, and freight forwarders must pay a one-time registration fee to
FMCSA of $300. However, under the URS, FMCSA will require exempt for-
hire, private motor carriers and other entities to pay a registration
fee as well. Section 4304 of SAFETEA-LU provided that the fee for new
URS applicants shall as nearly as possible cover the costs of
processing the registration but shall not exceed $300. The $300 limit
was removed by section 32106 of MAP-21. FMCSA determined that it would
charge all new applicants the maximum fee of $300 authorized by
SAFETEA-LU, even though the amount needed to cover the 10-year Agency
costs associated with processing the registration filings based on
projections of annual new applicants and Agency processing costs
exceeded $300 per filing. Although MAP-21 eliminated the $300 limit,
the final rule retains the $300 fee proposed in the SNPRM because the
Agency has not developed preliminary estimates on appropriate fees to
cover the full costs of operating its URS program, or issued for public
comment a proposal concerning such fees. The Agency has opted to
initiate, at a later date, a separate rulemaking proceeding to solicit
public comment on this issue,

rather than delay issuance of this final rule.
    FMCSA forecasted $360,122,795 in upgrading and operating costs of
the registration system over the 10-year period from 2014 through 2023.
This total includes the costs to operate the new motor carrier
licensing and insurance system. The total also includes the cost for
FMCSA to vet all new applicant for-hire carriers.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The FMCSA has authority to vet all for-hire carriers, but
is currently vetting only for-hire household goods and passenger
carriers. During the vetting process, FMCSA reviews the application
for completeness and compares the applicant's data with existing
carrier data in order to identify noncompliant carriers seeking
authority under a different name. If an application is incomplete,
FMCSA will contact the applicant to obtain missing information. If
FMCSA determines that an applicant is an unsafe carrier or the
application remains materially incomplete after contacting the
applicant, FMCSA will reject the application. The applicant is
provided an opportunity to appeal the rejection and submit
additional evidence to support its position that the application
should be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A portion of these licensing, insurance, and vetting costs will be
defrayed by fee revenues other than new applicant registration fees.
The FMCSA estimated fees collected for various insurance filings to be
$6,943,479 over the 10-year period, and subtracted the 10-year present
value of other fee revenues ($6,943,479) from the licensing, insurance,
and vetting cost estimate to arrive at $353,179,316 in present value
costs that the Agency must recover through the registration fee. FMCSA
divided this cost estimate by its projection of dollars collected per
dollar of fee ($486,678) \69\ to arrive at a fee of $725. For the
reasons stated above, FMCSA will charge $300 per new applicant. Though
a portion of the fees will cover some of the costs of FMCSA's review of
applications, the $300 fee will not be sufficient to cover all of these
review costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ This number was calculated by multiplying the number of new
registrants in each year by $1, discounting to find the present
value, and summing over the 10-year period of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost to industry associated with the change will be $63,583,722
in discounted dollars over the 10-year period (shown in Table 6). This
cost to industry will be offset by an equal benefit to the Agency
resulting from the revenues generated through the new registration
fees.

      Table 6--Proposed Change in FMCSA Registration Fee to New Applicants by Operation and Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
            Operation classification              Number  (2014-    Fee change     Total  (2010      (present
                                                       2023)                            $)            value)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exempt For-Hire Carriers........................          44,449             300     $13,334,700     $10,083,170
Private Carriers and other entities \*\.........         235,945             300      70,753,500      53,500,522
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         280,294  ..............      84,088,200      63,583,722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Cargo tank facilities and IEPs.

B. Designation of Process Agents

    FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 366 to require private and exempt for-hire
carriers to file process agent designation information with the Agency.
FMCSA believes that requiring exempt for-hire carriers to file process
agent designations would enhance safety and it is not cost prohibitive.
FMCSA's data show that exempt carriers appear to be comparable to the
general carrier population when it comes to crash rate and unfit
determinations. Therefore, it is equally important that FMCSA be able
to quickly identify the appropriate individual(s) on whom to serve
notices of enforcement actions. In 2011 and 2012, exempt for-hire
carriers constituted about 10 percent of unfit determinations made by
FMCSA resulting from compliance reviews. An analysis conducted by the
Agency to examine the safety profile of exempt for-hire carriers
indicated that these carriers had much higher post-identification crash
rates than private carriers, but lower post-identification crash rates
than non-exempt for-hire carriers.\70\ Additional information
supporting the Agency's decision to require exempt for-hire motor
carriers to file process agent designations with the Agency is found in
section 3.8 of the regulatory evaluation for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The analysis was run using the 2009 Safety Management
System (SMS) Effectiveness Test to look at the post identification
crash rates of: (1) Carriers with recent activity that meet
screening criteria that ensure they are operational during the
evaluation period; and (2) carriers with 1 or more Behavior Analysis
and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) above FMCSA's SMS
intervention thresholds. This analysis essentially identifies who
the Agency would have identified had it ran SMS in January 2010 and
then what those carriers post-identification crash rates were
between January 2010 and June 2011. The analysis showed that exempt
for-hire and exempt for-hire plus another classification experienced
higher crash rates (4.0 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively) than
private carriers (1.7 percent). The difference in crash rates is
even larger when examining those carriers with one or more BASICs
above the intervention threshold, with exempt for-hire carriers
having a crash rate of 5.8 percent, as compared to private carriers
having a crash rate of 2.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although under SAFETEA-LU carriers will not be assessed a fee when
filing this information, there is still a cost to industry associated
with engaging a process agent. The FMCSA estimated, based on price
quotes available from process agents, that the cost to engage a process
agent is currently about $35 per carrier. This cost was assumed to
cover the minimal filing cost to the process agent.\71\ No processing
cost was assumed for FMCSA for this electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The $35.00 process agent filing cost is based on an
internet search of process agents conducted May 7th, 2013 found on
the FMCSA Web site (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/licensing/agents.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency calculated $7,199,122 in discounted costs to industry
associated with new-applicant private and exempt for-hire carrier
process agent filings for 2014 through 2023.
    FMCSA assumed that no private and exempt for-hire motor carriers
with recent activity have designated process agents. The Agency
calculated one-time compliance costs for affected carriers with recent
activity of $10,546,445 based on its estimate of 301,327 private and
exempt for-hire carriers with recent activity in 2014.
    Finally, FMCSA, based on discussions with the FMCSA Commercial
Enforcement Division, estimated that 10 percent of private and exempt
for-hire motor carriers with recent activity will change their process
agents each year. The Agency calculated discounted costs to industry of
$7,321,445 associated with re-filing activities over the 10-year
analysis period. FMCSA also calculated the Agency resource cost to
process the carrier process agent changes.
    Non-exempt for-hire motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders
currently must file designations of process agents via a ``BOC-3''
filing. Under the URS final rule, FMCSA is requiring both private and
exempt for-hire carriers to make the same filings.
    This requirement will improve the ability of FMCSA safety
investigators to locate small and medium-sized private

and exempt for-hire motor carriers for enforcement action and
compliance-related activities because investigators would be able to
work with the newly-designated process agents to locate hard-to-find
motor carriers. If the time saved is used by safety investigators to
conduct more safety interventions, the Agency believes this will lead
to increased safety benefits. However, to present a conservative
estimate of the benefits of the URS final rule, we only estimate the
benefit of time saved by the Agency due to more efficient
interventions.
    The FMCSA investigators sometimes spend 20 hours or more attempting
to locate motor carriers, and in some cases are unable to track down
the subject carrier altogether. The FMCSA estimated that the
availability of process agent information would save field staff an
average of 15 hours in cases involving hard-to-locate carriers.
    In 2002, States conducted 216 carrier searches per year on average.
In 2003, FMCSA Division Offices reported between 10 and 100 cases per
State in which field staff had significant trouble locating a motor
carrier on whom they wished to conduct compliance reviews, with most
Division Offices reporting fewer than 25 such instances.
    FMCSA estimated that 15 enforcement cases per State per year (or
roughly two thirds of the ``difficult'' cases) will benefit from
dramatically reduced search costs because of the requirement for
private and exempt for-hire carriers to designate process agents.
    The estimates of 15 saved hours per difficult case and 15 difficult
cases per year per division result in 225 (15 x 15) annual staff hours
saved per State, or 11,475 (225 x (50 States + District of Columbia)
annual staff hours saved in total. Assuming the Agency would allocate
all of the annual saved staff hours to reducing labor costs, FMCSA
estimated the value of this annual benefit by multiplying the total
annual hours saved (11,475) by the Agency wage rate presented in
section 2 of the Regulatory Evaluation for the Unified Registration
System Final Rule, which is in the docket for this rulemaking. For
example, in 2014, the saved staff hours would benefit the Agency by
reducing labor costs by $424,917 (11,475 x $37.03).
    FMCSA projected this annual benefit over the 10-year analysis
period to arrive at a total benefit of $4.2 million in 2010 dollars.
FMCSA discounted this benefit to present value applying a seven percent
discount rate consistent with the other portions of this analysis. The
Agency arrived at a total benefit due to reduced labor cost (i.e.,
increased efficiency) of $3.2 million over the 10-year analysis period.
    In total, the regulatory changes requiring exempt for-hire and
private carriers to file process agent designations are estimated to
result in a cost of $25,067,012 to industry and a benefit to the Agency
of $3,130,736, and thus a societal net benefit of -$21,936,276.\72\ The
Agency sought, but did not receive, comments on how the process agent
filing process can be made less costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Current regulations (49 CFR part 366) require only motor
carriers and brokers that are subject to the 49 U.S.C. chapter 139
commercial registration requirements to designate a process agent.
Exempt for-hire motor carriers and private carriers are currently
not required to file process agent designations. The URS rule
requires all for-hire and private motor carriers, brokers, and
freight forwarders to designate process agents via electronic
submission as a precondition for receiving USDOT registration and/or
operating authority registration, when applicable. Of the roughly
$25 million in total resource costs to the industry for the
designation of process agents, only $4 million is incurred by exempt
for-hire carriers. The majority of the resource costs resulting from
this provision ($21 million) are incurred by private carriers, who
are required by statute to designate process agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the Agency time savings realized through the process
agent designation requirement, FMCSA believes it provides
unquantifiable benefits to both FMCSA and the public. FMCSA believes
that the unquantifiable benefits, which are discussed further in
subsequent paragraphs, outweigh the costs.
    When FMCSA needs to serve notices, such as out-of-service orders on
entities the Agency has deemed an imminent hazard or unsafe/unfit, it
attempts to provide the notification through three means--hand
delivery, U.S. mail, and/or by using a process agent to accomplish
service. The purpose of the designation of process provisions is to
ensure a carrier has been notified of the Agency order or notice, and
if it continues to operate in violation of the properly served order or
notice, the carrier could not claim it was unaware of the service.
Thus, the process agents are an important component of the registration
process as they eliminate the possibility for a carrier/regulated
entity to claim that it was not served with effective notification of
Agency action because of relocation or other circumstances.
    Beyond FMCSA's usage, the designation of a process agent enhances
the public's ability to serve legal process on responsible entities
when seeking compensation for property loss/damage or personal injury
resulting from a crash involving a commercial motor vehicle operated by
any motor carrier, regardless of where the incident took place.
Similarly, the designated process agent can receive service of process
concerning any court proceeding involving commercial transactions
between a carrier and an aggrieved party. With a regulated entity's
USDOT number or name, a member of the public can currently access
process agent information through the FMCSA Web site at http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/CompanySnapshot.aspx and, thus, can complete
service of legal process even if service cannot be effected directly on
the carrier, broker, or freight forwarder.

C. Financial Responsibility

    Under the URS final rule, the insurance representatives of all new
applicant exempt for-hire and private HM carriers will need to file
evidence of financial responsibility with FMCSA, and the carriers will
be assessed a $10 filing fee.\73\ FMCSA calculated 10-year fee costs of
$460,331 to industry using its estimate of new applicant exempt for-
hire and private HM carriers. This $460,331 cost to industry is offset
by an equal benefit to the Agency resulting from revenues from the new
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Section 4304 of SAFETEA-LU caps financial responsibility
filing fees at $10. The filing fee is paid to FMCSA by the insurance
company making the filing on behalf of the carrier and is passed on
to the carrier by the insurance company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The $10 fee is a transfer from the industry to the Agency, but the
industry will incur resource costs associated with filing. The FMCSA
assumed it would take insurance companies a minimal amount of time to
file the required proof of insurance for each carrier they insure.
Because these filings are handled electronically, FMCSA assigned a cost
of only $4 per filing, assuming 10 minutes of time for a clerk. The
Agency calculated the resource cost to new applicant exempt for-hire
and private HM carriers by multiplying its projection of filing costs
by its estimate of new applicants over the 10-year period to arrive at
a total discounted resource cost to industry of $184,132.
    FMCSA is requiring existing exempt for-hire and private HM carriers
to file proof of insurance. Using the Agency's 2008 MCMIS data, FMCSA
estimated that in 2014 there will be 48,308 exempt for-hire carriers
with recent activity and 25,019 private HM carriers with recent
activity. The Agency calculated a discounted cost to industry of
$693,890 associated with the fees. This cost to industry is offset by
an equal benefit to the Agency due to the revenues from the fees.
    FMCSA calculated the resource cost to carriers with recent activity
by multiplying its $4 filing cost estimate by

the total exempt for-hire and private HM carriers with recent activity
to arrive at a discounted resource cost of $733,270.
    Currently, all for-hire motor carriers, property brokers, and
freight forwarders performing transfer, collection and delivery service
must maintain current proof of financial responsibility on file with
FMCSA to remain in ``active'' status. If an insurance company or
financial institution notifies FMCSA of cancellation of coverage,
carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders must file evidence
of replacement coverage before the policy, bond, or trust fund
termination date. Under this final rule, exempt for-hire and private HM
carriers will be subject to the same URS requirements. There is a $10
fee associated with filing proof of replacement financial
responsibility. These provisions ensure the continuity of insurance
coverage by exempt-for hire, private HM carriers and all freight
forwarders. This security will pay any final judgment recovered against
any entity for bodily injuries to or the death of any person resulting
from the negligent operation, maintenance or use of CMVs in
transportation, or for loss of or damage to property of others in
connection with their transportation service. FMCSA may at any time
refuse to accept or may revoke its acceptance of any surety bond,
certificate of insurance, or other security or agreement that does not
comply with 49 CFR part 387 or fails to provide adequate public
protection.
    Based on 2008 MCMIS data, roughly 8.56 percent of non-exempt for-
hire carriers with recent activity filed proof of replacement liability
insurance coverage with the Agency. The FMCSA assumed the same portion
of the exempt for-hire and private HM carriers will file proof of
replacement insurance following a policy cancellation. The Agency thus
calculated the fees associated with evidence of financial
responsibility replacement filings resulting from this proposed change
by multiplying the $10 filing fee by 8.56 percent of the exempt for-
hire and private HM carriers with recent activity each year. This
calculation resulted in a discounted cost to industry over the 10-year
analysis period of $498,207. This cost to industry will be offset by an
equal benefit to the Agency in the form of new fees received.
    FMCSA calculated the resource cost to carriers with recent activity
by multiplying its replacement filing cost estimate by 8.56 percent of
the population of exempt for-hire and private HM carriers with recent
activity. This resulted in a total discounted resource cost to
operating carriers over the 10-year analysis period of $199,283. Again,
no costs were attributed to the Agency for these filings.
    Changes in requirements for financial responsibility filings
resulted in a total 10-year cost to industry of $1,691,808. This cost
to industry due to changes in requirements, however, is offset by an
equal benefit to FMCSA for revenues from fees associated with the
increased number of filings. Therefore, the societal costs due to
changes in fees are zero. These changes are estimated to result in
total 10-year resource costs to industry of $676,723.

D. Cancellation and Reinstatement of USDOT Numbers/Operating Authority

    As discussed in the previous section, non-exempt for-hire motor
carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders must maintain
current proof of financial responsibility (liability insurance, bond,
or trust fund information) with FMCSA to retain their operating
authority. If an insurance company or financial institution notifies
FMCSA of cancellation of coverage, carriers, property brokers, and
freight forwarders must file evidence of replacement coverage before
the policy, bond, or trust fund termination date. The operating
authorities of entities that do not file the required updates are
revoked and these entities must apply for reinstatement of their
operating authority by making the necessary filings. This final rule
requires exempt for-hire, private HM carriers, and all freight
forwarders providing transfer, collection, and delivery service to file
and maintain proof of liability insurance as a condition for obtaining
and retaining an active USDOT Number. FMCSA will deactivate the USDOT
Number of noncompliant entities, who would be required to reactivate
their USDOT registrations in order to resume operations subject to
FMCSA jurisdiction.
    Under the current system, carriers requesting reinstatement of
operating authority must file a written request for reinstatement, pay
an $80 fee (on-line by credit card, by phone with a credit card, or by
mail with a check) and make the applicable financial responsibility
filing. Once the payment is received and applicable filings are made,
the FMCSA information system matches up the payment with the filings
and automatically issues a reinstatement letter at 5 a.m. on the next
business day. Under the URS established in today's final rule, carriers
requesting reinstatement will make the request electronically using
Form MCSA-1, pay a $10 fee, and complete applicable filings showing
that their insurance is back in effect. The Agency aspect of the
reinstatement process will remain the same under the URS.
    FMCSA discusses these changes below in the following categories:
    (a) Reinstatement for non-exempt for-hire carriers, brokers, and
freight forwarders; and
    (b) Reinstatement for exempt for-hire and private HM carriers.
Reinstatement for Non-Exempt For-Hire Carriers, Brokers and Freight
Forwarders
    Under the current system, non-exempt for-hire carriers, brokers and
freight forwarders pay an $80 fee and file a written request for
reinstatement. Under the URS established in today's final rule, these
carriers will request reinstatement using Form MCSA-1, pay a $10 fee
and make the applicable insurance filing. The Agency assumed that the
cost of this requirement is minimal, and is approximately equal to that
of filing proof of insurance ($4). The Agency determined that it incurs
slightly less than $10 per request to process reinstatement requests.
The $10 reinstatement fee will be sufficient to defray Agency
processing costs. FMCSA calculated savings by non-exempt for-hire
carriers, brokers and freight forwarders applying for reinstatement by
multiplying the $70 reduction in fees for these carriers by the number
of affected carriers to arrive at a 10-year discounted saving of
$4,958,302. This industry benefit will be offset by an equal cost to
the Agency due to the loss of revenues from the fees.
Reinstatement for Exempt For-Hire and Private HM Carriers
    Under the current system, exempt for-hire and private HM carriers
do not file insurance-related reinstatements. Under the URS established
in today's final rule, these carriers will pay a $10 fee and file
updated information. Using 2008 MCMIS data, FMCSA calculated that 2.58
percent of exempt for-hire and private HM carriers would let their
insurance coverage lapse and later file reinstatement requests. The
Agency determined that it incurs slightly less than $10 per request to
process reinstatement requests. The $10 reinstatement fee will be
sufficient to defray Agency processing costs. FMCSA calculated fees
associated with this activity by multiplying the $10 fee by the number
of affected carriers to arrive at a 10-year discounted cost of
$150,176. This industry cost will be offset by an equal benefit to the
Agency due to the gain in revenues from the fees.
    There is a resource cost to industry associated with making these

reinstatement requests. As noted above, FMCSA assumed that the costs
associated with completing the applicable filings would equal the costs
associated with filing proof of insurance and process agent
designations ($4). FMCSA calculated discounted costs to industry of
$60,070 associated with filing activities over the 10-year analysis
period.
    FMCSA calculated discounted costs to the Agency of $135,158
associated with processing exempt for-hire and private HM carrier
reinstatements over the 10-year analysis period.
Cumulative Reinstatement Costs and Benefits
    Changes in fees for reinstatement of USDOT Numbers and/or
commercial operating authority resulted in a total 10-year saving to
industry of $4,808,126. This saving to industry, however, is offset by
an equal cost to FMCSA in lost revenues from fees associated with
reinstatements. The changes are estimated to result in total 10-year
resource costs of $60,070 to industry and $135,158 to FMCSA for a total
resource cost to society of $195,229. There are also qualitative
benefits to the Agency and the public from these requirements. The
extension of the financial responsibility filing and reinstatement of
authority requirements to exempt for-hire and private hazmat carriers
ensures that the Agency the proper and updated proof and documentation
of financial responsibility of those regulated entities. These
requirements also ensure that motor carriers will have the incentive to
maintain and operate their vehicles in a safe manner and that they will
maintain, and provide evidenced of, an appropriate level of financial
responsibility for motor vehicles operated on public highways.

E. Transfers and Name Changes

    Under the URS, the Agency will no longer require ownership,
management, and control certification when processing applicant
requests for name, address, or form of business changes. Motor carriers
will be required to report changes in management when completing their
Form MCSA-1 biennial updates, and will retain their existing USDOT
Number. No new or replacement USDOT Numbers will be issued. The Agency
estimates that approximately 494 requests for transfers of operating
authority will be filed with FMCSA in 2014, based on 2012 data
projected to 2014. Each of the carriers who requested a transfer of
operating authority paid a $300 filing fee to FMCSA for this activity.
Under the URS, FMCSA will not review or approve transfer requests. As
indicated above, our statutory authority to approve transfers under
former 49 U.S.C. 10926 was eliminated by the ICCTA. The Agency will,
however, institute a process under which it will not approve transfers,
but will require entities involved in these transfers to notify FMCSA
of the transaction by submitting an online Form MCSA-1.
    Based on the 2012 data projected to 2014, FMCSA estimated
discounted industry benefits of $1,176,535 over 10 years from the
elimination of the transfer application fee. This benefit to industry
will be offset by an equal cost to the Agency resulting from the loss
of revenues from the transfer application fee. Because FMCSA will still
require notification of the transfer by both the transferor and the
transferee, FMCSA calculated the resource cost for filing the
notification of transfers over the 10-year period to arrive at a total
cost of $38,236 over 10 years.
    FMCSA is eliminating the $14 filing fee currently assessed to non-
exempt for-hire motor carriers and others that change their business
names. This action will result in a cost savings to industry and a
matching cost to the Agency. In 2008, the Agency processed 11,141 name
change requests. Based on the 2008 data, projected to 2014, FMCSA
estimated 10-year discounted benefits to industry of $1,345,722 over
the 10-year period. This $1,345,722 benefit to industry will be offset
by an equal cost to the Agency resulting from the loss of name change
filing fee revenues.
    Elimination of transfer and name change filing fees resulted in a
total 10-year cost savings to industry of $2,522,258. The cost savings
to industry due to changes in filing fees, however, will be offset by
an equal cost to the Agency resulting from reduced revenues from these
filing fees. Therefore, the projected societal costs due to elimination
of the fees are zero. These changes will result in resource costs of
$38,236 to industry. The total reduction in fees for transfers and name
changes is the sum of $1,176,535 and $1,345,722, or $2,522,258; this
sum is a gain to industry and an equal loss to FMCSA.

F. The New Application Form--MCSA-1

    The new Form MCSA-1 will replace existing FMCSA registration forms.
There will be a time cost savings for those who presently file multiple
application forms. New applicant non-exempt for-hire motor carriers
currently file an OP-1 series form and the MCS-150 Form with FMCSA.
Property brokers and freight forwarders file an OP-1 series form only.
All other entities file forms in the MCS-150 series.
    FMCSA estimated an average completion time of just over 20 minutes
each \74\ for the MCS-150 series forms and 2 hours for the OP-1 forms.
FMCSA determined that 56.45 percent of new applicants file OP-1 series
forms, and 92.45 percent of new applicants file MCS-150 forms. Based on
these percentages, FMCSA calculated the current average new applicant
filing completion time as just under 1 hour and 26 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The MCS-150 Form has been estimated to require 20 minutes,
and the MCS-150B Form a slightly longer 26 minutes. Because only
about 2 percent of carriers file the MCS-150B, the average is very
close to 20 minutes. There is also an MCS-150C Form, but it is much
less frequently used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is requiring all new applicants except Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers requesting to conduct long-haul operations within the
United States to file only Form MCSA-1. Based on field testing, FMCSA
estimated that it would take those new applicants who would have used
the OP-1 Form 2 hours and 10 minutes to complete the new form. The
FMCSA assumes that the time required for entities who would have used
only the MCS-150 or 150B would not change if they used the MCSA-1 Form
instead. Multiplying 2 hours and 10 minutes by 56.45 percent (the
percent of new applicants that file OP-1 series forms), and adding just
over 20 minutes times the difference between 92.45 percent (the percent
of new applicants that file MCS-150 forms) and 56.45 percent yields
just over 1 hour and 20 minutes. Thus, FMCSA estimated a weighted
average time savings of almost 6 minutes for each new applicant (that
is, just under 1 hour and 26 minutes minus just over 1 hour and 20
minutes).
    Using its adjusted average hourly wage estimate for drivers \75\
and its projection of new applicants, FMCSA estimated a 10-year
discounted resource cost savings to industry of $1,354,631 attributable
to completing the new MCSA-1 Form instead of the forms it will replace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Note: This activity may be performed by someone other than
a driver. However, FMCSA assumed the person performing the activity
would earn a wage similar to that of a driver and used the driver
wage rate as the best indicator of cost for this activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA also calculated Agency time saved associated with processing
the new MCSA-1 Form. Based on the Agency's estimate that, due to
reductions in data entry, it would save 20 minutes of processing time
from not using the OP-1 series form, and its

determination that 56.45 percent of new applicants file the form, FMCSA
estimated an 11-minute time savings per applicant. The Agency
multiplied the adjusted average hourly wage estimate for the Agency by
the time saved processing the new MCSA-1 Form and the number of annual
new applicants to obtain a 10-year discounted resource cost savings of
$3,391,089.
    These changes are estimated to result in total 10-year resource
cost savings to industry of $1,354,621 and resource cost savings to
FMCSA of $3,391,089. The sum of the resource cost savings to industry
and FMCSA equals $4,745,720, which is the total benefit to society.

G. Mandatory Electronic Filing of the MCSA-1

    By requiring electronic submissions, FMCSA expects to reduce
processing costs. Electronic submissions have the additional benefit of
reducing erroneous data through automated data quality checks and
increasing the transparency of the data included in the URS. The Agency
believes that the cost savings resulting from reduced labor time and
paperwork, and the benefits associated with reducing erroneous data and
improving data transparency, would be difficult to achieve without
mandating electronic filing. This change, however, could impose a
burden on entities that do not have the means to file electronically or
that do not wish to file electronically.
    To assess this potential burden, and to determine what alternatives
to electronic filing would be available to small entities, FMCSA
conducted a detailed cost-benefit analysis, ``Report on Benefits and
Costs of Mandatory Electronic Filing for FMCSA's Unified Registration
System,'' which is included as Appendix A to the regulatory evaluation.
The Agency calculated costs and benefits associated with electronic
filing by using estimates of the amount of time required to file the
form and the number of expected applicants. The present value of the
benefits resulting from mandatory electronic filing is $20,922,981 in
benefits to FMCSA. The industry experiences a resource cost from
mandatory electronic filing of $538,894. Thus, the net present value of
the benefits associated with requiring mandatory electronic filing less
the costs results in a total net benefit to society of $20,384,087 over
a 10-year period.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563

    FMCSA has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by
E.O. 13563, and is significant within the meaning of Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5
dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) because it is
expected to generate significant public interest. However, the
estimated economic costs do not exceed the $100 million annual
threshold for economic significance. The OMB has reviewed this rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act [Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612]
requires Federal agencies to take small businesses' concerns into
account when developing, writing, publicizing, promulgating, and
enforcing regulations. To achieve this, the Act requires that agencies
detail how they have met these concerns through a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RFA). The Agency listed six elements that were
addressed during FMCSA's final rulemaking stage.
    (1) A description of the reasons why the Agency is taking this
action.
    FMCSA takes this action in response to section 103 of the ICCTA, as
amended by section 4304 of SAFETEA-LU, which, among other things,
requires the Secretary to develop regulations to replace four current
identification and registration systems with a single, online, Federal
system. The purpose of this rule is to consolidate and simplify current
Federal registration processes and to increase public accessibility to
data about interstate motor carriers, property brokers, freight
forwarders, and other entities. Pursuant to the statutory mandate,
FMCSA will charge registration and administrative fees that will enable
FMCSA to recoup the costs associated with processing registration
applications and administrative filings and maintaining this system.
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the rule. The ICCTA created a new 49 U.S.C. 13908 directing ``[t]he
Secretary, in cooperation with the States, and after notice and
opportunity for public comment,'' . . . to ``issue regulations 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, and the financial
responsibility information system under section 13906 with a single,
on-line, Federal system.''
    Section 13908(d) of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.),
authorizes the Secretary to establish, under 31 U.S.C. 9701, a fee
system for the Unified Carrier Registration System according to certain
guidelines providing for fee limits for registration, filing evidence
of financial responsibility and filing information regarding agents for
service of process.
    These directives specifically require FMCSA to undertake some of
the actions in this rule. The remaining related changes facilitate the
smooth operation of a unified Federal on-line registration system.
    (3) A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the rule will apply. FMCSA will subject all
regulated entities to the rule requirement.\76\ Carriers are not
required to report revenue to the Agency, but are required to provide
the Agency with the number of power units (PU) they operate, when they
register with the Agency, and to update this figure biennially. Because
FMCSA does not have direct revenue figures for all motor carriers, PUs