[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52607-52655]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20446]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 164

August 23, 2013

Part II

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

49 CFR Parts 360, 365, 366, et al.

Unified Registration System; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

[Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349]
RIN 2126-AA22

Unified Registration System

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATES: Effective Dates: The final rule is effective October 23, 2015,
except for Sec.  390.19 (amendatory instruction number 55) and Sec.
392.9b (amendatory instruction 61), which are effective November 1,
2013, and except for Sec.  366.2 (amendatory instruction 19), which is
effective April 25, 2016.
    Compliance Dates: The compliance date for this final rule is
October 23, 2015, except that the compliance date for Sec. Sec.  390.19
and 392.9b is November 1, 2013, and the compliance date for Sec.  366.2
is April 25, 2016.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received by September 23,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to:
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    All background documents, comments, and materials related to this
rule may be viewed in docket number FMCSA-1997-2349 using either of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wesley Ray, IT Specialist, IT
Development Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Business hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
    A. Viewing Comments and Documents
    B. Privacy Act
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the URS
    B. Summary of Major Provisions
    1. Entities Included in the URS
    2. The Application Process
    3. Updating URS Information
    4. Identification Solely by USDOT Number
    5. User Fees
    6. Evidence of Financial Responsibility
    7. Process Agent Designations
    8. Transfers of Operating Authority
    9. Impacts on State Registration Systems
    10. Compliance Dates
    C. Benefits and Costs
IV. Background
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Regulatory History
V. Discussion of Comments
    A. Summary of Comments
    B. Overly Complex Application Form
    C. Insufficient Technical Information
    D. Applicability
    1. Cargo Tank Program
    2. Certain Intrastate HM Carriers
    3. Hazardous Materials Safety Permit Applicants
    4. Mexico-Domiciled Carriers
    5. Non-Motor Carrier Leasing Companies
    6. School Bus Operations
    E. Mandatory Electronic Filing
    F. Biennial Update
    G. Administrative Filings
    1. Timeframe for Filing Changes to Name, Address
    2. Financial Responsibility for Certain FTA Grantees
    3. Financial Responsibility for Private HM Carriers
    4. Blanket Agents
    H. Potential URS Impacts on Existing Systems and Programs
    1. Impacts on PRISM Program
    2. Impacts on UCR Agreement
    I. Transfers of Operating Authority and Concerns about
Reincarnated Carriers
    J. Reinstatement of Operating Authority
    K. Unauthorized Re-Brokering of Freight
    L. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
    M. Other Suggested Revisions to MCSA-1 Form and Instructions
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Part 360, Fees for Motor Carrier Registration and Insurance
    B. Part 365, Rules Governing Applications for Operating
Authority
    C. Part 366, Designation of Process Agent
    D. Part 368, Application for a Certificate of Registration to
Operate in Municipalities in the United States on the United States-
Mexico International Border or within the Commercial Zones of Such
Municipalities
    E. Part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures
    F. Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for
Motor Carriers
    G. Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, General
    H. Part 392, Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles
VII. Regulatory Evaluation of the URS Final Rule: Summary of
Calculation of Benefits and Costs
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    D. National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
    I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    J. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    K. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    L. Privacy Impact Analysis

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments and Documents

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

B. Privacy Act

    All comments received are posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Anyone is able to search the electronic form for
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
organization). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you
may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ATA American Trucking Associations
BASIC Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Category
BI&PD Bodily Injury and Property Damage
CDL Commercial Driver's License
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CR Compliance Review
CSA Compliance Safety Accountability
CVIEW Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window
DBA Doing Business As
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
eFOTM Electronic Field Operations Training Manual
EPT Example Private Trucking
FF Freight Forwarder
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HHG Household Goods
HM Hazardous Materials
HMSP Hazardous Materials Safety Permit
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
ICCTA ICC Termination Act of 1995
IEP Intermodal Equipment Provider
IRP International Registration Plan
IT Information Technology
LLP Limited Liability Partnership
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
MC Motor Carrier
MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System
MCSA-1 Application for USDOT Registration/Operating Authority
MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation
NADA-ATDD National Automobile Dealers Association--American Truck
Dealers Division
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NPTC National Private Truck Council
NSTA National School Transportation Association
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
NTTC National Tank Truck Carriers
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
OTRB Act Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PU Power Unit
PRISM Performance and Registration Information Systems Management
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SBA Small Business Administration
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SSRS Single State Registration System
TIA Transportation Intermediaries Association
UCR Unified Carrier Registration
URS Unified Registration System
U.S.C. United States Code
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

III. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the URS

    This final rule establishes the Unified Registration System (URS)
required by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 \1\ (ICCTA) and the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).\2\ In the ICCTA, Congress enacted 49
U.S.C. 13908, which directed the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) to issue regulations to replace certain existing
registration and information systems with a single, online, Federal
system.\3\ SAFETEA-LU modified the requirements for a unified
registration system contained in the ICCTA. The details of these
requirements are discussed in section IV.A below (Legal Authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (Dec. 29, 1995).
    \2\ Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005).
    \3\ The Secretary of Transportation has delegated to the
Administrator of the FMCSA this authority to carry out functions
relating to registration requirements. See 49 CFR 1.87(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The implementation of the URS final rule will consolidate the
following registration and information systems: (1) The U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) identification number system; (2) the 49
U.S.C. chapter 139 commercial registration system; (3) the 49 U.S.C.
13906 financial responsibility information system; and (4) the service
of process agent designation system (49 U.S.C. 503 and 13304).
    The URS will improve the registration process for motor carriers,
property brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants and cargo
tank facilities required to register with FMCSA, and streamline the
existing Federal registration processes to ensure the Agency can more
efficiently track these entities. The URS also will increase public
accessibility to data about interstate motor carriers, property
brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants, and cargo tank
facilities.
    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was
enacted on July 6, 2012.\4\ This legislation includes several
provisions that are relevant to the implementation of the URS. However,
many of these statutory provisions will require notice-and-comment
rulemakings because they are not self-executing and provide discretion
in establishing the details for the implementing regulations. Rather
than delay issuance of this final rule, and to ensure an appropriate
opportunity for public participation in the regulatory changes
necessitated by MAP-21, the Agency will initiate a separate rulemaking
proceeding(s) to address the necessary regulatory changes. The Agency
notes that in some instances, these changes to the planned
implementation of the URS program will not require rulemaking but may
be addressed during the implementation phase of the URS. The enactment
of MAP-21 also necessitates minor changes in the MCSA-1 Form and
Instructions presented in the supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM). These changes do not require notice-and-comment
rulemaking,\5\ and FMCSA incorporates some of those changes in today's
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012).
    \5\ Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure
Act [5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)] (APA), notice and comment rulemaking is
not required when the Agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. The changes made in response to MAP-21 were limited
to modifying the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions to incorporate new
statutory language regarding affiliations with other regulated
entities. The SNPRM had proposed different, but similar language;
thus the modification was clearly within the scope of the issues
that were subject to notice and comment in the SNPRM. For this
reason, the agency believes that, consistent with the APA, providing
further opportunity for further public comment on these limited
changes is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Major Provisions

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

long-haul carriers). SAFETEA-LU amended 49 U.S.C. 13908(b) to require
the URS to ``serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on,
and identification of, all foreign and domestic motor carriers, motor
private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and others required to
register with [DOT].'' FMCSA is excluding Mexico-domiciled long-haul
carriers at this time because the U.S.-Mexico border is not open to
such carriers, other than the participants in the current cross-border
long-haul trucking pilot program.\6\ Table 1 describes in detail the
different type of entities that must register under the URS established
in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Pilot Program on the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) Long-Haul Trucking Provisions, 76 FR 40420 (July 8, 2011);
see also http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/intl-programs/trucking/trucking-program.aspx (last accessed July 31, 2012).

  Table 1--Entities Required To Register Under the Unified Registration
                                 System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Entity                            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For hire (exempt and non-exempt) or
 private motor carrier:
    a. For-hire motor carrier..........  A person engaged in the
                                          transportation of goods or
                                          passengers for compensation.
        i. Exempt......................  A person engaged in
                                          transportation exempt from
                                          commercial regulation under 49
                                          U.S.C. chapter 135. Exempt
                                          motor carriers that operate
                                          commercial motor vehicles as
                                          defined in 49 U.S.C. 31101 are
                                          subject to the safety
                                          regulations set forth in 49
                                          CFR chapter III.
        ii. Non-exempt.................  A person engaged in
                                          transportation subject to
                                          commercial regulation under 49
                                          U.S.C. chapter 139, regardless
                                          of whether such transportation
                                          is subject to the safety
                                          regulations.
    b. Private motor carrier...........  A person who provides
                                          transportation of property or
                                          passengers, by commercial
                                          motor vehicle, and is not a
                                          for-hire motor carrier.
2. Broker..............................  A person who, for compensation,
                                          arranges, or offers to
                                          arrange, the transportation of
                                          property in interstate
                                          commerce by a non-exempt for-
                                          hire motor carrier.
3. Freight forwarder...................  A person holding itself out to
                                          the general public (other than
                                          as an express, pipeline, rail,
                                          sleeping car, motor, or water
                                          carrier) to provide
                                          transportation of property for
                                          compensation in interstate
                                          commerce, and in the ordinary
                                          course of its business: (1)
                                          Performs or provides for
                                          assembling or consolidating of
                                          break-bulk, and distributing
                                          of shipments; (2) assumes
                                          responsibility for
                                          transportation from place of
                                          receipt to destination; and
                                          (3) uses for any part of the
                                          transportation a for-hire
                                          motor carrier subject to FMCSA
                                          commercial jurisdiction.
4. Intermodal equipment provider.......  A person who interchanges
                                          intermodal equipment with a
                                          motor carrier pursuant to a
                                          written interchange agreement
                                          or has a contractual
                                          responsibility for the
                                          maintenance of the intermodal
                                          equipment.
5. Hazardous Materials Safety Permit     A motor carrier that is
 applicant.                               approved to transport in
                                          interstate or intrastate
                                          commerce any of the hazardous
                                          materials, in the quantity
                                          indicated for each, listed
                                          under 49 CFR 385.403.
6. Cargo tank facility.................  A cargo tank and cargo tank
                                          motor vehicle manufacturer,
                                          assembler, repairer,
                                          inspector, tester, or design-
                                          certifying engineer that is
                                          subject to registration
                                          requirements under 49 CFR
                                          107.502 and 49 U.S.C. 5108.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Application Process
    The entities covered by the URS will be required to register with
FMCSA and update registration information provided on the new Form
MCSA-1 periodically as required. Entities that already have a USDOT
Number do not need to file the Form MCSA-1 until they need to update
registration information. FMCSA is requiring that regulated entities
fill out and update their registration information electronically using
a web-based, online version of Form MCSA-1. The Agency believes
mandatory electronic filing will result in substantial cost savings to
both applicants and FMCSA. The Agency is developing the online Form
MCSA-1 application process to guide the applicant to only the MCSA-1
information pertinent to its operations, and to skip any irrelevant
sections. The application process will mimic the interactive, interview
format of popular tax preparation software, rather than a static
fillable format. Applicants will only be asked questions applicable to
their specific operations.
    Under the URS application process, a new applicant will be issued
an inactive USDOT Number. The inactive USDOT Number will be activated
by the Agency only after the Agency has determined that the applicant
is willing and able to comply with applicable regulatory requirements
and the applicant has satisfied applicable administrative filing
requirements, such as evidence of financial responsibility, if
applicable, and a process agent designation (49 CFR 390.201(c)(2)).\7\
If a carrier also is seeking operating authority registration (non-
exempt for-hire carriers only), the USDOT Number will remain inactive
until all protests filed under 49 CFR part 365 have been resolved and
the applicant has satisfied all applicable administrative filing
requirements. An applicant with an inactive USDOT Number is prohibited
from operating in interstate commerce by 49 CFR 392.9b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``evidence of financial responsibility'' refers to
the forms filed with FMCSA by insurance companies, surety companies,
or financial institutions, in accordance with 49 CFR part 387. FMCSA
considers the filing of such forms to be evidence that motor
carriers and freight forwarders have the necessary insurance
coverage, and brokers have the necessary surety bonds or trust fund
agreements, in the minimum amounts prescribed by law. Unlike
insurance policies, which may cover numerous claims cumulatively
exceeding the dollar limits of the policy, broker bonds or trust
fund agreements may be depleted if the cumulative amounts of claims
filed against the broker for non-performance of its legal
obligations exceed the maximum amount of the bond or trust fund
agreement. In accordance with sec. 32918(a) of MAP-21, the Agency
will immediately suspend the registration of a broker or freight
forwarder with a depleted or partially depleted bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

provide changes to other information. However, such changes will not
relieve an entity of complying with the biennial update requirement.
Beginning on November 1, 2013 (the compliance date of the revised
biennial update provision), the Agency will issue a warning letter 30
days in advance of a biennial update deadline to notify the entity that
its USDOT Number will be deactivated if it fails to comply with the
biennial update requirement.
    This final rule also requires all entities to notify FMCSA of any
changes to legal name, form of business, or address within 30 days of
the precipitating change (new 49 CFR 390.201(d)(4)). This requirement
will ensure the continuing relevance and viability of the USDOT Number
as a unique identifier and repository for safety data associated with a
particular entity. In particular, this requirement will allow FMCSA to
monitor in a timely manner informational changes affecting all entities
holding USDOT Numbers.
4. Identification Solely by USDOT Number
    FMCSA will use the USDOT Number as its sole unique identifier for
motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders subject to its
regulations. The old registration systems administered by FMCSA used
four identification numbers: The USDOT Number, which most motor
carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction are required to obtain; the
Motor Carrier (MC) Number, which was assigned to non-exempt for-hire
motor carriers and brokers; the FF Number, which is assigned to freight
forwarders; \8\ and the MX Number, which is assigned to Mexico-
domiciled carriers operating within the U.S.-Mexico international
border commercial zones.\9\ The URS will discontinue issuance of MC,
MX, and FF Numbers to those entities who register with FMCSA. However,
today's rule will not require motor carriers to remove the obsolete
numbers from their vehicles, and those numbers may be used for other
purposes such as advertising or marketing. But the Agency encourages
carriers to omit these obsolete numbers from new or repainted vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 49 U.S.C. 13903.
    \9\ See 49 U.S.C. 13902(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. User Fees
    FMCSA is revising user fees for URS registration, insurance
filings, and other services as detailed in Table 2 below. The Agency
will charge a $300 registration fee for all entities filing new
registration applications. Currently, only non-exempt for-hire motor
carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders must pay a one-time
registration fee to FMCSA of $300. SAFETEA-LU provided that the fee for
new applicants must as nearly as possible cover the costs of processing
the registration, but shall not exceed $300. The recently enacted MAP-
21, however, removed this $300 cap on the initial registration fee.
FMCSA determined that the amount needed to cover the costs associated
with processing the registration filings based on projections of annual
new applicants and Agency processing costs substantially exceeded what
could be collected through charging $300 per applicant. Consequently,
the October 26, 2011 URS supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
\10\ (SNPRM) proposed to charge the statutory maximum established by
SAFETEA-LU for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified
Registration System, 76 FR 66506 (Oct. 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although MAP-21 eliminated the $300 limit, the final rule retains
the $300 fee proposed in the SNPRM because the Agency has not developed
preliminary estimates on appropriate fees to cover the full costs of
operating its URS program, or issued for public comment a proposal
concerning such fees. The Agency has opted to initiate, at a later
date, a separate rulemaking proceeding to solicit public comment on
this issue, rather than delay issuance of this final rule.
    FMCSA is reducing the fee currently charged for reinstating
operating authority registration after such authority has been revoked
from $80 to $10. The Agency is eliminating the existing $10 process
agent designation filing fee in keeping with provisions in SAFETEA-
LU.\11\ The current $10 fee for filings related to financial
responsibility remains unchanged. The fees charged under URS will
enable the Agency to recoup the costs associated with processing
registration applications and administrative filings to the extent
permitted by law. FMCSA retains the existing fees for self-insurance
pending resolution of changes in these fees in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ SAFETEA-LU, Sec.  4304, codified at 49 U.S.C. 13908(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

       Table 2--URS User Fees as Established Under 49 CFR 360.3(f)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type of Proceeding                                       Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I: Registration
    (1).......................  An application for      $300.
                                 USDOT registration
                                 pursuant to 49 CFR
                                 part 390, subpart C.
    (2).......................  An application for      $100.
                                 motor carrier
                                 temporary authority
                                 to provide emergency
                                 relief in response to
                                 a national emergency
                                 or natural disaster
                                 following an
                                 emergency declaration
                                 under Sec.   390.23
                                 of this subchapter.
    (3).......................  Biennial update of      $0.
                                 registration.
    (4).......................  Request for change of   $0.
                                 name, address, or
                                 form of business.
    (5).......................  Request for             $0.
                                 cancellation of
                                 registration.
    (6).......................  Request for             $10.
                                 registration
                                 reinstatement.
    (7).......................  Designation of process  $0.
                                 agent.
    (8).......................  Notification of         $0.
                                 transfer of operating
                                 authority.
Part II: Insurance

    (9).......................  A service fee for       $10 per accepted
                                 insurer, surety, or     certificate,
                                 self-insurer accepted   surety bond or
                                 certificate of          other
                                 insurance, surety       instrument
                                 bond, and other         submitted in
                                 instrument submitted    lieu of a
                                 in lieu of a broker     broker surety
                                 surety bond.            bond.
    (10)......................  (i) An application for  $4,200.
                                 original
                                 qualification as self-
                                 insurer for bodily
                                 injury and property
                                 damage insurance
                                 (BI&PD).
                                (ii) An application     $420.
                                 for original
                                 qualification as self-
                                 insurer for cargo
                                 insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Evidence of Financial Responsibility
    This final rule requires all for-hire motor carriers and private
motor carriers that transport hazardous materials (HM) in interstate
commerce, as well as property brokers and freight forwarders, to
electronically file evidence of financial responsibility to receive
USDOT registration. Existing regulations require only non-exempt for-
hire motor carriers, property brokers, and household goods freight
forwarders performing transfer, collection, and delivery services, to
file evidence of financial responsibility with the Agency, and they
allow hard copy submissions. SAFETEA-LU section 4303(b) amended 49
U.S.C. 13906 to require ``all persons, other than a motor private
carrier, registered with the Secretary to provide transportation or
service as a motor carrier'' to file evidence of financial
responsibility with the Agency. Section 13906 also requires all
property brokers and all freight forwarders performing transfer,
collection, and delivery services to file evidence of financial
responsibility with the Agency. FMCSA interprets these statutory
requirements to mandate financial responsibility filings by all for-
hire motor carriers, freight forwarders, and property brokers.
    The Agency also requires certain private motor carriers
transporting HM in interstate commerce to file evidence of financial
responsibility with the Agency. These carriers are already required by
statute and regulations to obtain and maintain Bodily Injury and
Property Damage (BI&PD) insurance; this final rule requires the filing
of evidence of such insurance with FMCSA. The Agency will be addressing
the financial responsibility requirements for private non-hazardous
material carriers separately from the URS final rule.
    The Agency is requiring filings of evidence of financial
responsibility for new applicants to be completed within 90 days of the
date that an application is submitted (49 CFR 390.205(a)), or within 90
days of the date that the notice of application is published in the
FMCSA Register, if a carrier is also seeking operating authority
registration (49 CFR 365.109). The Agency is not providing a grace
period for financial responsibility filing by existing exempt for-hire
motor carriers or private motor carriers hauling HM. Such carriers must
file by the compliance date of the final rule.
    FMCSA is requiring insurers, surety companies, and financial
institutions to convert to a web-based format when electronically
filing evidence of financial responsibility (49 CFR 387.323). FMCSA
currently accepts insurance filings in three formats: paper filings,
electronic (ASCII) filings, and web-based filings. Web-based filings
will promote efficiencies for FMCSA, insurers, sureties, financial
institutions, and the public.
7. Process Agent Designations
    FMCSA requires all for-hire and private motor carriers, brokers,
and freight forwarders to designate process agents via electronic
submission as a precondition for receiving USDOT registration and/or
operating authority registration, when applicable (49 CFR 366.1).
Current regulations require only entities that must register under 49
U.S.C. chapter 139 to designate a process agent (i.e., non-exempt for-
hire motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders), and the
regulations permit hard copy submissions. Private motor carriers are
already mandated by 49 U.S.C. 503 to designate process agents, although
FMCSA has not until now promulgated a rule requiring them to do so.
Although there is no statutory requirement that exempt for-hire
carriers file process agent designations, the Secretary is authorized
under 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for motor carriers and other entities subject to the
Agency's safety oversight. Thus, FMCSA will extend the process agent
designation requirement to include such carriers, as well as private
carriers, to enhance the public's ability to serve legal process on
responsible individuals when seeking compensation for losses resulting
from a crash involving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operated by any
motor carrier, regardless of the carrier's regulatory status.
    The final rule also makes revisions to the Agency's designation of
process agent regulations to provide greater certainty that process
agent designations are accurate and that process agents are able to
receive and serve on their client principals notices in court or
administrative proceedings against regulated entities. Current
regulations permit a carrier to fulfill its process agent designation
requirements by listing an association or corporation that has filed
with FMCSA a list of process agents for each State (blanket agent). To
help ensure that such designations are up to date, new 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 has added 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 termination
of their contracts to provide process agent services for designated
entities within 30 days of termination.
    The Agency is requiring that new filings of designation of process
agents be completed within 90 days of the date that an application is
submitted, or within 90 days of the date that the notice of the
application is published in the FMCSA Register if a carrier is also
seeking operating authority registration under 49 CFR 365.109. An
applicant is prohibited from operating until these filings are made and
its USDOT Number has been activated. Existing private and exempt for-
hire motor carriers will have a 180-day grace period (starting from the
final rule compliance date) to file process agent designations. (49 CFR

366.2(b)). The grace period is necessary to accommodate the anticipated
high volume of new filings under the URS.
8. Transfers of Operating Authority
    FMCSA amends its regulations to require notification of transfers
of operating authority registration. This final rule revises subpart D
of title 49 CFR part 365, Transfers of Operating Authority, to reflect
the Agency's current statutory authority over transfers of operating
authority. Although FMCSA proposed to repeal this subpart, the Agency
has since determined that it is in the public interest to require non-
exempt for-hire motor carriers, property brokers, and freight
forwarders that register under chapter 139 to notify FMCSA when these
entities merge, transfer, or lease their operating rights. The Agency
no longer accepts or reviews requests for transfers of operating
authority. FMCSA believes, however, that it is necessary to require the
reporting aspects of the regulations governing these transactions.
These reporting requirements will enable the Agency to identify the
parties responsible for the business operations of a for-hire motor
carrier, broker, or freight forwarder.
9. Impacts on State Registration Systems
    This final rule allows motor carriers registering their vehicles in
States that participate in the Performance and Registration Information
System Management (PRISM) Program to satisfy the USDOT registration and
biennial update requirements by electronically filing the required
information with the State \12\ according to its policies and
procedures, provided the State has integrated the USDOT registration/
update capability into its vehicle registration program (49 CFR
390.203). If State procedures do not allow a motor carrier to file the
Form MCSA-1 or to submit updates within the required 24-month window,
the motor carrier will need to complete such filing directly with
FMCSA. The Agency plans to work collaboratively with PRISM States to
implement IT specifications to ensure a seamless transition to the URS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As used in this context, State refers to the agency in a
PRISM Program State responsible for CMV registration (for example, a
Department of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Administration, State
Driver Licensing Agency, or Taxation and Revenue Authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Compliance Dates
    The compliance date for the majority of this final rule is 26
months from the date of publication in the Federal Register. We have
set this date to ensure sufficient time to develop URS. The Agency
determined that enforcement of the biennial update requirement through
the imposition of civil penalties is so important that the compliance
date for this requirement (49 CFR 390.19(b)(4)) will occur as soon as
possible (November 1, 2013). Motor carriers and intermodal equipment
providers are already required to update their registration information
every 24 months under Sec.  390.19. The Agency believes it is very
important for regulated entities to update their registration
information biennially. Timely updates are critical to FMCSA's
compliance and enforcement program because they increase the likelihood
that the Agency will be able to accurately identify, locate, and
contact regulated entities to carry out its mission. The Agency,
therefore, is implementing the regulatory provision stating that anyone
failing to comply with the biennial update requirement is subject to
civil penalties beginning November 1, 2013 rather than waiting an
additional 24 months to implement this significant enforcement tool.
For similar reasons, FMCSA is implementing the new enforcement
provision that states the penalties for operating a CMV providing
transportation in interstate commerce without a USDOT Registration and
an active USDOT Number (Sec.  392.9b).

C. Benefits and Costs \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Calculations presented in this section may be subject to
rounding errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA classified the costs and benefits calculated in the
regulatory evaluation as either changes in fees, resource costs,\14\ or
benefits. Changes in fees are neutral and will not result in a net gain
(benefit) or loss (cost) from a societal perspective. For example, if
FMCSA were to eliminate a fee previously paid by motor carriers, that
group would receive a benefit. However, the benefit would be offset by
an equal cost to the Agency in the form of lost revenues. Unlike
changes in fees, changes in resource costs and benefits do result in
either a cost or a benefit to society. The Agency estimated the costs
and benefits associated with implementing the following major URS
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Resource costs are expenditures of capital or labor
incurred by the industry or Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A new requirement for private and exempt for-hire motor
carriers, cargo tank facilities, and intermodal equipment providers
(IEPs) to pay FMCSA registration fees; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Throughout the Regulatory Evaluation, cargo tank facilities
and IEPs are referred to as ``other entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A new requirement for private carriers and exempt for-hire
motor carriers to acquire the services of process agents and file proof
of designations with FMCSA;
     A new requirement for private HM and exempt for-hire motor
carriers to file proof of liability insurance with FMCSA--these
entities are already subject to the financial responsibility
requirements of 49 CFR part 387;
     A reduction of the current reinstatement fee for non-
exempt for-hire motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders and new
reinstatement fees for exempt for-hire and private HM carriers;
     Elimination of FMCSA review and approval of operating
authority registration transfers, including the $300 fee, while still
requiring notification of transfers of operating authority;
     Elimination of filing fees for name changes;
     Introduction of new Form MCSA-1 filing requirements; and
     Mandatory electronic filing of Form MCSA-1.
    Table 3 presents the total benefits of the URS rule for each
provision. For the industry, total benefits amount to $1.4 million and
fee savings amount to $7.3 million over the 10-year analysis period
(2014-2023). For the Agency, total benefits during this period amount
to $27.4 million and an additional $65.3 million in fees received.
    This rule will improve the ability of FMCSA safety investigators to
locate small and medium-sized private and exempt for-hire motor
carriers for enforcement action because investigators will be able to
work with the newly-designated process agents to locate hard-to-find
motor carriers. The Agency believes that a more efficient Compliance,
Safety, Accountability (CSA) Program due to the URS Rule will lead to
increased safety benefits. However, to present a conservative estimate
of the benefits of the URS rule, we only estimate the benefit of time
saved by the Agency due to a more efficient CSA Program.

                                       Table 3--Total Benefits of URS Rule
                                             [10-year present value]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Benefits                   Fees received/saved
               URS Rule provision                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Industry         Agency         Industry         Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Electronic Filing.....................              $0     $20,922,981              $0              $0
Eliminating Transfer/Name Change Requirements...               0               0       2,522,258               0
New Applicant Fee...............................               0               0               0      63,583,722
Insurance Filing................................               0               0               0       1,691,808
Process Agent Filing............................               0       3,130,736               0               0
Cancellations and Reinstatements................               0               0       4,808,126               0
New MCSA-1 Application Form.....................       1,354,631       3,391,089               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits..............................       1,354,631      27,444,807       7,330,384      65,275,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

    Table 4 presents the total costs associated with the URS final
rule. The URS final rule will result in an anticipated resource cost to
industry of $26.4 million and a resource cost to FMCSA of approximately
$135,000 over the 10-year analysis period (2014-2023).\16\ The total
societal cost of the URS final rule is thus approximately $26.5 million
($26,380,935+$135,158). The industry also will pay additional fees of
$65.3 million, and the Agency will experience an average decrease in
fee revenues of $7.3 million over the 10-year analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The resource cost to FMCSA for building the IT system is
not included in the economic analysis.

                                        Table 4--Total Costs of URS Rule
                                             [10-year present value]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Resource costs                  Fees paid/lost
               URS Rule provision                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Industry         Agency         Industry         Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Electronic Filing.....................        $538,894              $0              $0              $0
Eliminating Transfer/Name Change Requirements...          38,236               0               0       2,522,258
New Applicant Fee...............................               0               0      63,583,722               0
Insurance Filing................................         676,723               0       1,691,808               0
Process Agent Filing............................      25,067,012               0               0               0
Cancellations and Reinstatements................          60,070         135,158               0       4,808,126
New MCSA-1 Application Form.....................               0               0               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs.................................      26,380,935         135,158      65,275,530       7,330,384
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

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

                                        Table 5--Net Benefits of URS Rule
                                             [10-year present value]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Net benefits                      Net fees
               URS Rule provision                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Industry         Agency         Industry         Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Electronic Filing.....................       -$538,891     $20,922,981              $0              $0
Eliminating Transfer/Name Change Requirements...         -38,236               0       2,522,258      -2,522,258
New Applicant Fee...............................               0               0     -63,583,722      63,583,722
Insurance Filing................................        -676,723               0      -1,691,808       1,691,808
Process Agent Filing............................     -25,067,012       3,130,736               0               0
Cancellations and Reinstatements................         -60,070        -135,158       4,808,126      -4,808,126
New MCSA-1 Application Form.....................       1,354,631       3,391,089               0               0
Net Benefits....................................     -25,026,304      27,309,648     -57,945,146      57,945,146
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Societal Net Benefits.......................             2,283,344
                                                                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

IV. Background

A. Legal Authority

    FMCSA promulgates the Unified Registration System final rule in
response to sec. 103 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) [Pub.
L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 888, Dec. 29, 1995] and subtitle C of title
IV of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144,
1761, Aug. 10, 2005]. This rulemaking action is also consistent with
the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49 U.S.C. 13301, 31133(a)(8),
31134, and 31136(a).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13908, which was enacted into law by section
103 of the ICCTA, Congress directed the Secretary in cooperation with
the States, and after notice and opportunity for public comment, to
issue regulations to replace four existing information systems with a
single, on-line, Federal system. These Agency systems were: (1) The
USDOT identification number system; (2) the since-repealed Single State
Registration System (SSRS) under 49 U.S.C. 14504; (3) the registration
system contained in 49 U.S.C. chapter 139; and (4) the financial
responsibility information system under 49 U.S.C. 13906.
    Congress also directed the Secretary, in developing this
rulemaking, to consider whether to integrate the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 13304 regarding service of process in court proceedings into the
new system. Congress intended for the new system to serve as a
clearinghouse and depository of information on, and identification of,
all foreign and domestic motor carriers, brokers, and freight
forwarders, and other entities required to register with the Department
as well as information on safety fitness and compliance with minimum
levels of financial responsibility.
    The language of 49 U.S.C. 13908(c), as enacted by the ICCTA, also
authorized the Secretary to ``establish, under section 9701 of title 31
[of the U.S. Code], a fee system for registration and filing evidence
of financial responsibility under the new system under subsection (a).
Fees collected under the fee system shall cover the costs of operating
and upgrading the registration system, including all personnel costs
associated with the system.''
    Pursuant to the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005, subtitle
C of title IV of SAFETEA-LU, Congress modified some of the elements of
the unified registration system required by the ICCTA. In particular,
SAFETEA-LU changed the scope of the Secretary's responsibility to
develop a registration system to replace the SSRS. It also modified the
requirement that fees collected under the new system cover the costs of
operating and upgrading the registration system and placed limitations
on certain fees that the Agency could charge. Section 4304 of SAFETEA-
LU reiterated the congressional requirement for a single, on-line,
Federal system to replace the four individual systems identified under
49 U.S.C. 13908 and also mandated inclusion of the service of process
agent systems under 49 U.S.C. 503 and 13304. SAFETEA-LU refers to the
Federal online replacement system as the Unified Carrier Registration
System. The Agency considers the URS announced in both the May 2005
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the October 2011 SNPRM to be
the Unified Carrier Registration System.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Under section 4305 of SAFETEA-LU (which enacted 49 U.S.C.
14504a), Congress replaced the SSRS with the Unified Carrier
Registration (UCR) Agreement. Registration and payment of fees under
the UCR Agreement are not the responsibility of FMCSA; the SSRS was,
and the UCR Plan and Agreement is, administered by the participating
States. However, as provided by 49 U.S.C. 13908(b), information
about the compliance of entities subject to the UCR Agreement will
be available through the URS when that system has been developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the reference to 49 U.S.C. 14504 in section 4304 of
SAFETEA-LU, section 4305(a) of SAFETEA-LU repealed 49 U.S.C. 14504,
which governed the SSRS, effective January 1, 2007. The legislative
history indicates that the purpose of the UCR Plan and Agreement is
both ``to replace the existing outdated system [SSRS]'' for
registration of interstate motor carrier entities with the States and
to ``ensure that States don't lose current revenues derived from SSRS''
(S. Rep. 109-120, at 2 (2005)).\18\ Today's final rule incorporates the
requirements imposed by SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Senate bill's provisions were enacted ``with
modifications.'' H. Conf. Rep. No. 109-203, at 1020 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title 31 U.S.C. 9701 (the so-called ``User Fee Statute'')
establishes general authority for agencies to ``charge for a service or
thing of value provided by the Agency.'' Accordingly, FMCSA is
authorized to charge fees under URS that will enable the Agency to
recoup costs associated with processing registration applications and
administrative filings. Prior to the enactment of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),\19\ 49 U.S.C. 13908(d)
required establishment of registration fees that, as nearly as
possible, cover the costs of processing the registration, provided the
fees do not exceed $300. MAP-21 removed the $300 fee cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405. MAP-21 was signed into
law on July 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

that FMCSA can more efficiently track motor carriers, freight
forwarders, brokers, intermodal equipment providers and cargo tank
facilities to maximize safety. It implements the mandate under 49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) that FMCSA's regulations ensure that CMVs are
maintained and operated safely. Because the rule applies almost
entirely to motor carriers and imposes no operational responsibilities
on drivers, FMCSA believes that coercion of drivers to violate the
rule, in contravention of section 31136(a)(5), will not occur. This
regulation will not impair a driver's ability to operate vehicles
safely (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)), and will not impact the physical
condition of drivers (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and (4)).
    Legal authority for requiring notification to the Agency of
transfers of operating authority registration (and for requiring exempt
for-hire motor carriers to file process agent designations) can be
found at 49 U.S.C. 13301 and 31133. Under 49 U.S.C. 13301(b), the
Secretary has broad authority to obtain from persons information
regarding carriers and brokers the Secretary decides is necessary to
carry out the Agency's commercial regulatory responsibilities, as
enumerated in title 49, subtitle IV, part B. The term ``carriers''
includes freight forwarders (49 U.S.C. 13102(3)). In addition, 49
U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for motor carriers and other entities
subject to the Agency's safety oversight.

B. Regulatory History

    The Federal Highway Administration (FMCSA's predecessor agency)
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) announcing
plans to develop a single, online, Federal information system in August
1996.\20\ The ANPRM solicited specific detailed information from the
public about each of the systems to be replaced by the URS, the
conceptual design of the URS, uses and users of the information to be
collected, and potential costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Motor Carrier
Replacement Information/Registration System, 61 FR 43816 (Aug. 26,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2005, FMCSA published an NPRM describing a proposal to
merge all of the prescribed information systems except the SSRS into a
unified, online Federal system.\21\ The Agency subsequently revised the
May 2005 proposal in an October 26, 2011 SNPRM to incorporate new
congressionally mandated provisions in SAFETEA-LU, and modified certain
proposals in response to comments to the NPRM.\22\ The SNPRM also
included changes necessitated by final rules published subsequent to
publication of the NPRM that directly impacted the URS. In the SNPRM,
the Agency substantially altered the regulatory drafting approach
proposed in the NPRM by creating a straightforward requirement for all
entities to register and biennially update registration information
under the new URS and by compiling a centralized cross-reference to
existing safety and commercial regulations necessary for compliance
with the registration requirements. The Agency abandoned previous
efforts to reorganize all registration and new entrant requirements
under a single part under title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
chapter III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified Registration System,
70 FR 28990 (May 19, 2005).
    \22\ Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified
Registration System, 76 FR 66506 (Oct. 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAP-21 affects a number of rules that FMCSA is currently working
on, including this one. Because MAP-21 was enacted several months after
the close of the comment period for the SNPRM, the public has not had
an opportunity to comment on provisions of the Act that may have an
impact on the URS. Rather than delay issuance of this final rule, and
to ensure an appropriate opportunity for public participation in the
changes necessitated by MAP-21, the Agency will initiate a separate
rulemaking proceeding(s) to address most of the needed changes. In some
cases, these changes will not require rulemaking and will be addressed
during the implementation phase of the URS. In other cases, minor or
technical changes that involve little exercise of Agency discretion in
the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions, which would not require notice and
comment rulemaking, have been made to conform with MAP-21.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure
Act [5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)] (APA), notice and comment rulemaking is
not required when the Agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. The changes made in response to MAP-21 were limited
to modifying the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions to incorporate new
statutory language regarding affiliations with other regulated
entities. The SNPRM had proposed different, but similar language;
thus the modification was clearly within the scope of the issues
that were subject to notice and comment in the SNPRM. For this
reason, the agency believes that, consistent with the APA, providing
further opportunity for further public comment on these limited
changes is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of Comments

A. Summary of Comments

    FMCSA received comments to the URS SNPRM from nine respondents:
American Trucking Associations (ATA),\24\ Greyhound, Inc.
(Greyhound),\25\ the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT),\26\
the National Automobile Dealers Association--American Truck Dealers
Division (NADA-ATDD),\27\ the National Private Truck Council
(NPTC),\28\ the National School Transportation Association (NSTA),\29\
the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC),\30\ the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA),\31\ and the Transportation
Intermediaries Association (TIA).\32\ These entities consist of
industry trade groups, a State government, and a motor carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0184.
    \25\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0182.
    \26\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0186.
    \27\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0188.
    \28\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0187.
    \29\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0185.
    \30\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0189.
    \31\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0190.
    \32\ Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Overly Complex Application Form

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

    Specifically, ATA commented that while it supported the requirement
to file the MCSA-1 Form online, the proposed MCSA-1 was not well-suited
for online filing because a longer form requires different treatment
online. If the MCSA-1 Form could not be simplified, this commenter
recommended that the form be split into a number of separate forms,
along either functional lines or according to the type of entity
required to report. NADA-ATTD strongly urged FMCSA to consider
revisions to the MCSA-1 to make it more applicable to small, private
motor carriers. This commenter recommended that the Agency issue
another SNPRM outlining these changes before implementation of the URS.
NADA-ATTD commented that FMCSA had not explained sufficiently why the
substantial additions to this form were necessary, especially for small
motor carriers.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency included the proposed Form MCSA-1 and
Instructions in the SNPRM to illustrate the new unified application
form around which the URS will be built, to disclose the complete list
of registration information that the Agency will collect from the
public and record in the URS, and to announce that the Agency will no
longer require the individual forms associated with safety and
commercial registration today. The paper Form MCSA-1 and Instructions
included in the SNPRM was necessary to provide notice of and seek
comment on the information FMCSA was proposing to collect and the
Agency's explanation of those data fields. Form MCSA-1 is not intended
to be completed in hardcopy but as an online, interactive application.
    When the URS program is fully implemented, the electronic version
of the Form MCSA-1 will be considerably less complex and lengthy than
the paper version because URS will guide the applicant to only those
portions of the MCSA-1 Form pertinent to the particular applicant's
operations, thus skipping all irrelevant sections that do not apply.
The application process will mimic the interactive, interview format of
popular tax preparation software, and will use software similar to that
used by the U.S. Department of Education in the Free Application for
Student Aid (FAFSA), in contrast with a static PDF fillable form.
Applicants will be asked only those questions applicable to their
specific operations. An applicant's answers to the initial MCSA-1
questions, including operation classification (Section A, question 15)
and reason for filing (pre-Section A), will determine which sections of
the MCSA-1 Form that entity will be subsequently prompted to fill. As
suggested in ATA's comments, an applicant will not need to view the
sections of the MCSA-1 Form that were not applicable to that entity.
The Agency's goal is to eliminate as much of the guesswork as possible
from the electronic registration process and to receive accurate
information. As explained throughout this final rule, FMCSA received
and has adopted many helpful suggestions for corrections, improvements,
and clarifications to the MCSA-1 Form and Instructions. The updated
MCSA-1 Form and Instructions are available in the docket FMCSA-1997-
2349 for the public to view.
    The online, interactive application process will particularly
assist small carriers by requiring applicants to view only the portions
of the MCSA-1 Form that are relevant to them, based on their answers to
the first few questions. Thus, the electronic filing process will save
a small carrier the needless effort of reading through portions of a
form or instructions that they need not submit. Questions will display
on the left side of the screen and a pop-up screen will appear on the
right with instructions, as well as examples of acceptable responses.
    To explain how the system will work, we will walk through a mock
registration scenario for a private non-HM property motor carrier we
will call ``Example Private Trucking'' (EPT). Since EPT is applying to
operate as a private carrier, the regulations for obtaining operating
authority registration under 49 CFR part 365, or filing evidence of
financial responsibility under 49 CFR part 387, would not apply. To
obtain a USDOT registration, EPT will be prompted to complete only 5 of
the 16 sections on Form MCSA-1: Section A (Business Description);
Section B (Operation Classification); Section M (Compliance
Certifications); Section N (Applicant's Oath); and Section P (Filing
Fee). The online URS would also prompt EPT to designate a process
agent. After EPT completes the registration information and process
agent designation, FMCSA would immediately issue an active USDOT Number
and flag the motor carrier for participation in the New Entrant Safety
Assurance Program. The biennial update will require EPT to submit even
less information than the initial registration process.

C. Insufficient Technical Information

    ATA expressed concern about the lack of technical details regarding
the planned URS design in the SNPRM. ATA stated that because the URS is
a data-processing system, the technical details of its design are of
critical importance to its eventual effectiveness in accomplishing its
stated purpose and functions.
    In particular, ATA expressed concern about the lack of details
regarding the proposal that motor carriers could fulfill their biennial
registration update obligations by filing with their base States under
the PRISM Program. ATA stated that this procedure would be difficult to
coordinate, and commented that the SNPRM disclosed so little detail
with respect to these plans that it could not assess their feasibility,
or their chances for success. Therefore, this commenter recommended
that FMCSA provide a clearer description of what is intended in
connection with PRISM State registration in an additional SNPRM. ATA
commented that the public interest in this key element of the
registration function was too great for the matter to be handled by
amendments to the PRISM procedures.
    FMCSA Response. With regards to system specifications, FMCSA is
unable to provide these details at this time because the Agency is
completing the regulatory aspects of the URS project in advance of the
completion of the IT system requirements development. The Agency has
published several final rules with associated IT requirements that must
be scheduled to coincide with imminent regulatory compliance dates
earlier than the URS compliance date. Meanwhile, each year the Agency
delays finalization of the URS rule increases the possibility that new
requirements and corresponding system changes could be imposed. The
Agency opted to complete the URS rulemaking project separately from the
associated IT development project to provide adequate notice of the new
registration requirement, and set a compliance date that builds in
sufficient lead time for regulatory compliance and system development.
The Agency plans to work collaboratively with PRISM States to implement
IT specifications to ensure a seamless transition to the URS.

D. Applicability

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

per se a transportation program,\33\ and can reasonably be handled in
another manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In its comments to the NPRM, ATA stated that the cargo tank
registration program is not a motor carrier program because it
applies only to persons engaged in the manufacture, assembly,
inspection and testing, certification, or repair of a cargo tank.
Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

``serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, and
identification of, all foreign and domestic motor carriers, motor
private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and others required
to register with the U.S. Department of Transportation, including
information with respect to a carrier's safety rating, compliance
with required levels of financial responsibility, and compliance
with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14504a.'' (Emphasis added).

As explained in the SNPRM, FMCSA interprets this statutory provision as
authorizing the inclusion of all entities regulated by FMCSA in the
URS.\34\ Although the cargo tank registration program is not a motor
carrier program, FMCSA believes that merging the Cargo Tank
Registration Process with the URS will best further the congressional
intent to create a unified system of information and registration, as
expressed in the SAFETEA-LU provision quoted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 76 FR 66506, 66512-66513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) regulations at 49 CFR part 107, subpart F govern the
registration procedures for persons who are engaged in the manufacture,
assembly, inspection and testing, certification, or repair of a cargo
tank or a cargo tank motor vehicle manufactured in accordance with a
DOT specification under subchapter C of 49 CFR chapter III or under
terms of a special permit issued under 49 CFR part 107.\35\ Under Sec.
107.502(d), PHMSA requires cargo tank facilities to complete their
registration requirements with FMCSA. As previously mentioned, the
electronic Form MCSA-1 will be designed so only cargo tank facility
applicants would encounter the questions that apply exclusively to
cargo tank registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 49 CFR part 107, subpart F, Registration of Cargo Tank
and Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Assemblers, Repairers,
Inspectors, Testers, and Design Certifying Engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See section V.M for a discussion of FMCSA's rationale not to
collect additional cargo tank information on the Form MCSA-1.
2. Certain Intrastate HM Carriers
    NTTC recommended that FMCSA require all transporters of bulk HM in
tank vehicles to register with the Agency using Form MCSA-1, including
intrastate-only carriers. This commenter stated ``that while it
believed all intrastate [HM] carriers should be required to register
with FMCSA,'' it was limiting its request ``to those carriers who
transport [hazardous] materials in bulk in tank vehicles.'' NTTC
expressed concern that under the CSA Program, HM carriers will only be
measured against other interstate carriers or intrastate carriers from
States that require them to get a USDOT Number. NTTC asserted that
because only 31 States require intrastate HM carriers to obtain a USDOT
Number, the Safety Measurement System HM Behavioral Analysis Safety
Improvement Category (BASIC) may not truly measure HM carriers against
their peers since it will not have information on all HM carriers.
    NTTC encouraged the DOT to incorporate into its registration
process a requirement whereby intrastate tank truck carriers of HM
register with FMCSA. NTTC commented that if this rule is not the
appropriate vehicle to require registration of intrastate tank truck
carriers of HM with FMCSA, then it requested that the Department
consider its comment submission to be a petition for rulemaking. NTTC
commented that a ``OneDOT'' approach in the near term would be to
require that any HM tank truck carrier applying to register with PHMSA
must first be registered with FMCSA. This commenter stated that the
PHMSA transporter registration program does not exclude intrastate
carriers.
    FMCSA Response. Generally, the Agency does not have authority to
regulate motor carriers that operate exclusively in intrastate commerce
because the statutes on which most of FMCSA's commercial regulations
and safety regulations are based apply primarily to transportation in
interstate commerce.\36\ The only Federal safety regulations applicable
to motor carriers that operate exclusively in intrastate commerce are
the commercial driver's license (CDL) requirement for drivers operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) as defined in 49 CFR 383.5; controlled
substances and alcohol testing for all persons required to possess a
CDL; minimum levels of financial responsibility for intrastate
transportation of certain quantities of HM; applicable portions of the
HM regulations in 49 CFR parts 100-180; and the requirement to obtain a
Hazardous Materials Safety Permit (HMSP). As a result, the Agency will
not accommodate this request at this time. The Agency, however, will
accept NTTC's filing as a petition for rulemaking, and will handle the
issue at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 49 U.S.C. 31132(1) (defining ``commercial motor
vehicle'' for purposes of safety regulation as ``a self-propelled or
towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce to
transport passengers or property . . .'') (emphasis added); 49
U.S.C. 13501 (giving FMCSA general jurisdiction over transportation
in interstate and foreign commerce for purposes of commercial
regulation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Hazardous Materials Safety Permit Applicants
    The SNPRM table entitled ``Entities Required to Register under the
Unified Registration System'' explained that an HMSP applicant was a
``motor carrier that transports in interstate or intrastate commerce
any of the HM, in the quantity indicated for each, listed under 49 CFR
385.403.'' \37\ NTTC recommended that FMCSA change this SNPRM table so
that the entry that described HMSP applicants would read as follows:
``A motor carrier that transports in interstate or intrastate commerce
any of the HM, in the quantity indicated for each, listed under 49 CFR
172.101.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 76 FR 66506, 66514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response. FMCSA intentionally referenced the list of HM and
quantities in 49 CFR 385.403, because the HMSP is not required for
every hazardous material listed under 49 CFR 172.101 titled, ``Table of
Hazardous Materials and Special Provisions.'' The HMSP is required only
for the HM transported in an amount or manner listed under Sec.
385.403.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 5109(b), Congress authorized the Secretary to
prescribe the types and quantities of HM which are subject to an HMSP,
stipulating that the list must, at a minimum, include the four types of
HMs listed in section 5109(b). The Secretary delegated responsibility
for implementing section 5109 to the FMCSA Administrator. See 49 CFR
1.87(d)(2). In 2004, FMCSA published a final rule establishing a
national HMSP program for motor carriers that transport in interstate
or intrastate commerce the HM listed and transported in the amount or
manner prescribed in Sec.  385.403(a)-(f).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Final Rule, Hazardous Materials Safety Permits, 69 FR
39350 (June 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers
    MoDOT commented that the Agency should exclude all Mexican carriers
from completing Form MCSA-1, including carriers with operations

limited to the border commercial zones. This commenter asserted that it
is confusing to have some of the Mexican carriers complete this form
and others complete the old OP-1(MX) and MCS-150 forms.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency is adopting the approach proposed for
Mexico-domiciled carriers in the SNPRM. FMCSA will subject all entities
under its jurisdiction to the URS registration requirement, to the
extent practicable. Applications from Mexico-domiciled long-haul
carriers, however, will continue to be processed separate from the URS
because the U.S.-Mexico border is open to only those carriers
participating in the pilot program with distinct requirements.\39\ The
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) authorized the Agency to
apply different standards for long-haul Mexico-domiciled carriers due
to concerns about regulatory disparities between Mexico and the United
States. Because the results of the pilot program are still uncertain,
it would be premature to include long-haul Mexico-domiciled carriers in
the URS at this time. FMCSA may include such carriers in the URS in the
future, if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Pilot Program on the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) Long-Haul Trucking Provisions, 76 FR 40420 (July
8, 2011); see generally http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/intl-programs/
trucking/Trucking-Program.aspx (last accessed Apr. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA disagrees with MoDOT that all Mexico-domiciled carriers,
including those confined to the border commercial zones, should be
excluded from the URS based on possible confusion. Commercial zone
Mexico-domiciled carriers already file different forms, and are subject
to different rules, than Mexico-domiciled long-haul carriers. Including
Mexico-domiciled commercial zone carriers in the URS, moreover, is
consistent with the statutory mandate to include foreign carriers in
the system.
5. Non-Motor Carrier Leasing Companies
    MoDOT requested that the Agency provide a specific definition for
the term ``leasing company'' and instructions for how these entities
should complete Form MCSA-1. According to MoDOT, there may be instances
where such companies act as a motor carrier, but in other cases they do
not. When the leasing company is not a motor carrier, MoDOT commented
that the company needs to know how to complete the MCSA-1 Form, which
sections apply to it, and how to report or not report its number of
vehicles.
    FMCSA Response. FMCSA contacted MoDOT to gain a clearer
understanding of this comment and learned it is actually a request for
FMCSA to require non-motor carrier leasing companies to register in URS
so that States have a source through which they can identify these
entities to collect UCR Agreement fees.\40\ Therefore, the Agency
regards this as an ``applicability'' issue rather than a form-related
one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Memorandum, Telephone Conversation with Barbara Hague,
Missouri Department of Transportation, Motor Carrier Services,
Document ID No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0178-0193; Memorandum and Contact
with Missouri Department of Transportation Clarification of Issue
Involving Leasing Companies, Document ID No. FMCSA-1997-2349-0192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under new FMCSA PRISM procedures that took effect on or about
September 1, 2012, non-motor carrier leasing companies are no longer
required to obtain USDOT Numbers. On August 9, 2010, FMCSA announced
the elimination of ``registrant-only'' USDOT Numbers as part of the
PRISM Program.\41\ As stated in that notice, FMCSA originally developed
the concept of a registrant-only USDOT Number to identify registered
owners of CMVs that are not motor carriers, but lease their CMVs to
entities that are motor carriers. FMCSA concluded, however, that
registrant-only USDOT Numbers were being used differently than the
Agency intended, impeding its ability to track motor carriers' safety
violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Notice of Procedural Changes to the Performance and
Registration Information Systems Management Program, 75 FR 47883
(Aug. 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, in several cases, law enforcement personnel conducting
inspections and crash investigations were presented with registrant-
only numbers of the leasing companies providing the vehicles instead of
the USDOT Numbers of the motor carriers operating the vehicles. In
these instances, the data could not be assigned to the record of a
motor carrier. Motor carriers that improperly used registrant-only
numbers, therefore, were evading FMCSA safety oversight, including
compliance reviews and New Entrant Safety Audits. If safety events are
not properly attributed to the motor carrier operating the CMVs, FMCSA
cannot factor those events into the motor carriers' safety ratings and
other assessments. This situation results from the misidentification of
a vehicle and is a marking issue, rather than an IT or URS issue.
    Accordingly, FMCSA decided to eliminate the PRISM procedure that
requires non-motor carrier applicants, including leasing companies, to
obtain registrant-only USDOT Numbers. PRISM Program States were
directed to modify their systems, forms, instruction manuals, computer
systems' validation and safety edits, renewal applications and MCS-150
edits and procedures by August 31, 2011. FMCSA planned to eliminate the
practice of allowing non-motor carrier applicants to obtain registrant-
only USDOT Numbers by September 1, 2011. On August 31, 2011, however,
FMCSA extended the effective date for making the change to eliminate
the registrant-only entry to September 1, 2012.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Notice, Extension of Effective Date, 76 FR 54288 (Aug.
31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because FMCSA does not regulate non-motor carrier leasing
companies, they will not be included within the URS and will not have
to complete the Form MCSA-1. FMCSA will deactivate the USDOT Numbers
issued to leasing companies prior to October 23, 2015. Beginning
September 1, 2012, the Agency notified each entity registered as a
Registrant to either deactivate its USDOT Number or change its
operation type to the appropriate carrier operation. If such actions
are not taken, the Agency will deactivate those USDOT Numbers.
6. School Bus Operations
    The NSTA commented that, as it understood the proposed rule, school
bus operations (home-to-school-to-home routes) continue to be exempt
from URS. Therefore, a for-hire school bus contractor would register
under URS only if the contractor also provides charter transportation,
such as school activity trips. If this were the case, the NSTA
commented that it believed the contractor would check the box on the
proposed form in Section A, question 17a, for Charter and Special
Operations. The NSTA requested clarification from FMCSA that under the
sections on the Form MCSA-1 that ask for the number of vehicles and the
number of drivers who will be operating in the United States, the
contractor need enter only the portion of its vehicles and drivers that
are used in charter operations, and not the portion that are used in
school bus operations. NSTA also requested clarification as to whether
Section G, question 36 (Government Funding Status) of Form MCSA-1
includes a contract between a municipality and a school bus contractor
for school transportation service, if such contract includes activity
transportation.
    FMCSA Response. This final rule does not in any way affect the
school bus exemption. Motor carriers that provide charter
transportation services under contract to schools, and that are subject
to FMCSA jurisdiction, remain subject to registration requirements with
regard

to the need to obtain authority to operate an interstate for-hire motor
carrier, maintain minimum levels of financial responsibility and file
proof of coverage, and acquire and maintain proof of designation of
process. The drivers employed by these carriers are subject to FMCSA's
requirements for commercial driver's licenses and the controlled
substances and alcohol testing rules. Such a contractor that provides
charter transportation would check the box on the MCSA-1 Form in
Section A for Charter and Special Operations, which has been renumbered
as question 15a. In response to the NSTA's specific questions, the
contractor need enter only the portion of its vehicles and drivers that
are used in interstate charter operations, and not the portion that are
used solely in school bus operations, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. In
compliance reviews, the Agency also does not count the number of buses
used for exempt transportation.
    Regarding Form MCSA-1, the question regarding Government Funding
Status, which has been renumbered as question 34, does not include a
contract between a municipality and a school bus contractor for school
transportation service, if such contract includes activity
transportation. The question is directly related to the requirements of
49 U.S.C. 13902. Under 49 U.S.C. 13902(b), the Agency is obligated to
grant an application for regular-route operating authority filed by a
private recipient of government financial assistance if the applicant
can show that it is fit, willing, and able to serve the route, unless a
protestant comes forward and affirmatively demonstrates that granting
the application would be inconsistent with the public interest. Under
49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(8)(B), the term ``private recipient of government
assistance'' is defined as ``any person (other than a public recipient
of government assistance) who received governmental financial
assistance in the form of a subsidy for the purchase, lease, or
operation of any bus.'' Based on this definition, FMCSA believes that
payments made by a municipality to a for-hire school bus operator to
provide non-exempt transportation of students would be considered
compensation rather than a subsidy and, thus, not within the confines
of section 13902(b)(8)(B). Therefore, such an applicant would not be
considered a private recipient of government assistance under these
circumstances, and the public interest standard would not apply.
    Generally, for specific interpretations of existing regulatory
requirements, any member of the public may contact the FMCSA Office of
Policy or visit the FMCSA regulatory guidance Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguide.aspx?section_type=G.

E. Mandatory Electronic Filing

    The SNPRM proposed the adoption of an exclusively online electronic
registration system.\43\ ATA endorsed requiring entities filing
applications or updating their information with FMCSA to do so
electronically. However, this commenter recommended that FMCSA
establish a backup process for the mandatory electronic filing
requirement, should the Agency's electronic system be temporarily
unavailable for some reason, such as a natural disaster or terrorist
attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 76 FR 66506, 66519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

F. Biennial Update

    FMCSA proposed to require electronic updates to Form MCSA-1
biennially.\44\ MoDOT asked if FMCSA will automatically deactivate the
USDOT Number (and revoke corresponding operating authority
registration) of those entities that have not updated their MCS-150s
within the 2-year requirement as of the final rule effective date.
MoDOT believes that doing so would be extremely helpful in cleaning old
data from the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 76 FR 66506, 66594 (proposed 49 CFR 390.101(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response. The Agency will not automatically deactivate a
USDOT Number for any entity currently registered within the system
solely on the basis that it has not completed a biennial update
requirement that may come due on the compliance date of the final rule.
The Agency believes that such entities should first receive a warning
regarding this regulatory change. Therefore, beginning November 1, 2013
(the compliance date of the revised biennial update provision), the
Agency will issue a warning letter 30 days in advance of a biennial
update deadline to notify the entity that its USDOT Number will be
deactivated if it fails to comply with the biennial update requirement.
    Only after an entity has failed to heed that warning will the
Agency begin deactivating USDOT registrations for failure to update the
information on Form MCSA-1 and consider imposing civil penalties.
FMCSA, however, would not retroactively apply sanctions against
entities that had not met the biennial update requirement by November
1, 2013.

G. Administrative Filings

1. Timeframe for Filing Changes to Name, Address
    FMCSA proposed to require all entities to notify FMCSA of any
changes to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1 (e.g., a change
in legal name, form of business, or address) within 20 days of the
precipitating change.\45\ ATA recommended retaining the current 45-day
deadline for notification of such changes. In support of its request,
ATA stated that because the nature of many of these changes (e.g., a
change of address, change of business name, etc.) implies a disruption
in the ordinary routines of a business entity, it may be unrealistic to
expect such expeditious notification. This commenter also stated that
the SNPRM proposed no changes to 49 CFR 365.413, regarding the
procedure for motor carrier name changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 76 FR 66506, 66586 (proposed 49 CFR 365.509(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response. Although ATA does not provide specific regulatory
references to a 45-day notification requirement, the only current
regulations containing such a requirement are Sec. Sec.  365.509,
368.4, and 385.609. These regulations apply to motor carriers domiciled
in Mexico or outside of North America.
    In response to ATA's comments and for purposes of consistency,
FMCSA amends all change reporting deadlines to 30 days after the date
of the change event (see Sec. Sec.  390.201(d)(4), 365.509(a),
366.6(b), 368.4(a), 385.405(d), and 385.609(a)(2)). FMCSA has added an
additional 10 days to the update requirement and believes that a 30-day
requirement is reasonable and would not be more disruptive to a
carrier's business than the 45-day requirement proposed by ATA.

2. Financial Responsibility for Certain FTA Grantees
    The SNPRM explained that for a passenger carrier that provides
transportation within a transit service area located in more than one
State under an agreement with a Federal, State, or local government
funded, in whole or in part, with a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310,
or 5311, the minimum financial responsibility requirement is the
highest level of financial responsibility required for any of the
States in which it operates.\46\ FMCSA explained that this aspect of
the proposal was a consequence of 49 U.S.C. 31138(e)(4), which exempts
section 5307, 5310, and 5311 grantees from the Federal general
financial responsibility requirements and instead subjects them to
applicable State requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 76 FR 66506, 66520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Greyhound expressed support for the proposed financial
responsibility requirements for such FTA grantees, particularly the
language added to the Form MCSA-1 Instructions that states that the
FMCSA financial responsibility requirements ``do not apply to entities
providing transportation service within a transit service area under an
agreement with a Federal, State, or local government funded in whole or
in part with a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, or 5311.'' However,
Greyhound expressed concern that the proposed amendments to 49 CFR
387.33, Financial responsibility, minimum levels, only referred to
entities that provide transportation services within a transit service
area located in more than one State.\47\ This commenter stated that it
believes FMCSA's changes were intended to apply to transit operators
whether they are operating in just one State or across State lines.
Greyhound suggested that, because of the complexity of this issue,
FMCSA should state clearly that it is using its authority under 49
U.S.C. 31138(e)(4) to authorize transit providers that operate in only
one State, but participate in interline relationships with interstate
carriers, to meet their FMCSA financial responsibility requirements by
complying with the financial responsibility requirements of the State
in which they operate. This commenter requested similar clarifying
language to 49 CFR 387.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 76 FR 66506, 66589 (proposed 49 CFR 387.33(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response. FMCSA has, at Greyhound's suggestion, added
language to 49 CFR 387.33(b), as well as to 49 CFR 387.303, Security
for the protection of the public: minimum limits, to clarify that FTA
grantees providing service within a transit service area and are
subject to the special insurance requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31138(e),
are also subject to these requirements when they operate in a single
State, but participate in providing interstate service by entering into
interline agreements with interstate carriers. The instructions to Form
MCSA-1 (Section K) have also been modified to incorporate this
clarification, as requested by the commenter.
3. Financial Responsibility for Private HM Carriers
    FMCSA proposed to require a private motor carrier hauling HM in
interstate commerce to file evidence of financial responsibility with
the Agency.\48\ The NPRM explained that these carriers are already
required by statute (49 U.S.C. 31138 and 31139) and regulations (49 CFR
part 387) to obtain and maintain public liability insurance, and that
the proposed change would merely require filing of evidence of
financial responsibility with FMCSA.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 76 FR 66506, 66515, 66594 (proposed 49 CFR
390.103(a)(2)(ii)).
    \49\ See 70 FR 28990, 28997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPTC questioned the need to require private motor carriers
transporting HM in interstate commerce to file evidence of financial
responsibility with FMCSA as a condition for obtaining registration and
believes the Agency offered no compelling policy reason for requiring
private HM carriers to now file evidence of liability coverage. NPTC
stated that currently, regulations permit private HM carriers to meet
financial responsibility requirements by maintaining a copy of the HM
liability endorsement (Form MCS-90) at the company's principal place of
business, subject to review upon reasonable demand by enforcement
officials. This commenter asserted that absent evidence of lack of
compliance with liability insurance requirements, it sees no need to
impose a new filing mandate on private motor carriers transporting HM.
    FMCSA Response. Congress expressly authorized FMCSA to require a
private motor carrier to file evidence of financial responsibility with
the Agency (49 U.S.C. 31139; SAFETEA-LU section 4120). At this time,
the Agency has elected to require only those private motor carriers
that transport HM in interstate commerce to make these filings.
    FMCSA believes that the potentially greater human toll and
environmental consequences of HM-involved CMV incidents make it even
more important to ensure that private HM carriers under its
jurisdiction can adequately cover liabilities arising from such
incidents as a condition for granting registration. Further, the filing
requirement for private HM carriers would assure members of the public
that such carriers have the financial means to compensate them for
injuries or damages caused by negligence. These filings also would
increase public accessibility to insurance information and would enable
FMCSA to more effectively track insurance cancellations. This new
requirement for private HM carriers will not impose a significant new
burden because, as explained above, these carriers are already required
to maintain public liability insurance. Filing evidence of insurance
coverage with FMCSA, as opposed to maintaining evidence of coverage at
the place of business, will require the filing of a form with the
Agency.\50\ FMCSA believes that this nominal cost for private HM
carriers is warranted to achieve the benefits noted above. As discussed
in the SNPRM, there will be a 3-month moratorium on enforcement of the
filing requirement after the compliance date of this final rule. The
moratorium would not apply to new applicants for USDOT registration.
Therefore, the Agency is establishing the financial responsibility
filing requirement for private HM carriers as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 49 CFR 387.15, Forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Blanket Agents
    FMCSA proposed to expand its existing designation of process agent
requirements to private and exempt for-hire carriers.\51\ The Agency's
designation of process agent regulations (49 CFR part 366) permit a
carrier to fulfill its process agent designation requirements by
listing an association or corporation that has filed with FMCSA a list
of process agents for each State (blanket agent) on the required Form
BOC-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 76 FR 66506, 66525 and 70 FR 28990, 28999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

out that 49 CFR 366.5 permits a carrier to satisfy its process agent
designation requirements by listing a blanket agent on its BOC-3, and
that such listing could satisfy the carrier's designation requirement
indefinitely, regardless of whether any relationship is maintained
between the blanket agent and the motor carrier. OOIDA commented that
the regulations would not ensure that a motor carrier's process agent
designations are updated and accurate unless the biennial update
requirement is also expanded to include the BOC-3 Form. Further, OOIDA
stated that 49 CFR 366.6, Cancellation or change, is silent concerning
the ability of the blanket agent to cancel the designation, and only
allows the motor carrier to take such action.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency has revised the final rule to
accommodate this commenter's concerns. FMCSA agrees that the current
service of process agent requirements should be modified to provide
greater certainty that process agent designations are accurate and that
process agents are able to receive and serve on their clients/
principals notices in court or administrative proceedings on regulated
entities. Accordingly, the Agency has revised 49 CFR 366.6 in several
respects. First, in Sec.  366.6(a), we have clarified that the process
agent or blanket agent, in addition to the motor carrier, broker, or
freight forwarder, may cancel or change a process agent designation by
filing a new designation with the Agency. To help ensure that such
designations are up to date, Sec.  366.6(b) requires that changes to
designations be reported to FMCSA within 30 days of the change. This
will provide more timely notice of such changes than a biennial update
requirement would and are consistent with other notifications of change
required by the rule.
    In response to OOIDA's concern that a process agent would be unable
to serve notices on a motor carrier if the carrier does not notify the
agent of a change of address, the Agency has added, in 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, while FMCSA does not have jurisdiction over process agents
and blanket agents, they should report to the Agency when their
contract or relationship with the entity they represent terminates.
Motor carriers, other entities we regulate, and the public depend upon
these process agents and blanket agents to keep their information
current. Thus, the Agency has added new Sec.  366.6(d), which requires
process agents and/or companies to provide FMCSA with a notice of
termination within 30 days of the termination. FMCSA's Office of
Registration and Safety Information currently authorizes blanket agents
to submit process agent designations on behalf of regulated entities.
Failure to keep process agent information up to date may result in the
withdrawal of Agency authorization.
    Overall, the amendments to the requirements in part 366 will help
ensure that the process agent designation regulations serve their
purpose of assisting members of the public seeking compensation for
losses involving a CMV. Accurate process agent information from all
parties to the transaction enables the public to serve process in
lawsuits on the correct party in any State in which a motor carrier,
broker, or freight forwarder operates. Additionally, FMCSA uses the
information to locate hard-to-find carriers for compliance
interventions and to serve notices for civil penalty enforcement
actions, out-of-service orders, and other administrative proceedings.
Therefore, these requirements will ensure that the Agency can properly
enforce its regulations against violators.

H. Potential URS Impacts on Existing Systems and Programs

    A few commenters expressed concerns about potential negative
impacts of URS implementation on Federal/State partnership initiatives
such as the UCR Agreement, the PRISM Program, the CSA Program, and the
New Entrant Safety Assurance Program. FMCSA assures stakeholders that
the Agency will consult with them in planning, developing and testing
the new URS information system to prevent conflicts with such programs.
1. Impacts on PRISM Program
Inconsistent Motor Carrier Registration Data
    MoDOT requested that FMCSA clarify how the proposed URS information
requirements will impact the PRISM Program. In particular, MoDOT
commented that information concerning carrier registration is passed to
the States within the States' Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange
Window (CVIEW) snapshot, and is used when companies plate their
vehicles under the International Registration Plan (IRP). This
commenter stated that inconsistent data when information is validated
for the PRISM Program is confusing for the States and the industry.
    FMCSA Response. PRISM ensures that a vehicle does not receive
license plates without identification of the carrier responsible for
the safety of the vehicle during the registration year. By using
vehicle registration sanctions, PRISM serves as a powerful incentive
for unsafe carriers to improve their safety performance. CVIEW data has
various purposes while PRISM data specifically targets certain vehicles
and motor carriers. FMCSA believes these data programs are
complementary, not inconsistent.
    PRISM Program States should transition to the Form MCSA-1 and the
Agency will provide training to ensure seamless implementation. PRISM
grant funds may also be available to provide financial assistance.
Aside from use of the new Form MCSA-1 as described in this final rule,
FMCSA does not anticipate that the changes to the URS will
significantly impact the operations of the State's PRISM or CVIEW
program. States participating in PRISM will continue to perform PRISM
functions such as issuing USDOT Numbers, mandating the update to the
MCSA-1, and applying vehicle registration sanctions when appropriate.
Type of Operation Classification on the MCSA-1 Form
    MoDOT expressed concerns regarding how the practice of changing a
carrier's interstate operation classification to intrastate when no
interstate transportation has been performed would be affected by the
proposed URS requirements. This commenter explained that the FMCSA
Electronic Field Operations Training Manual (eFOTM) states that if a
State attempts to perform a New Entrant Safety Audit and determines
that the carrier has not performed any interstate transportation, the
State should not perform a New Entrant Safety Audit, but instead should
change the carrier's interstate operation classification to intrastate.
The eFOTM further instructs States to tell the motor carrier to go
online and change its operation from ``Intrastate'' to ``Interstate''
when it begins to operate in interstate commerce.
    MoDOT also requested clarification regarding proposed 49 CFR
365.110, which stated that the operating authority will not become
permanent until the applicant satisfactorily completes the New Entrant
Safety Assurance Program. The commenter asked what would happen to a
carrier's operating authority when no interstate transportation has
been performed within a designated period of time and

the States are told not to perform a safety audit (per the eFOTM
procedures). MoDOT asked whether States should be permitted to
deactivate the USDOT Number if no interstate activity has been
performed within a designated time frame and the State does not require
a USDOT Number for intrastate operations. MoDOT further asked whether
States should be allowed to perform the safety audit if the carrier
intends to operate in interstate commerce in order to ensure that the
company is ``ready'' and meets all requirements for operating in
interstate commerce.
    FMCSA Response. Currently, the eFOTM procedures direct a safety
investigator/auditor not to conduct a safety audit if he or she learns
the motor carrier has not yet begun interstate operations when the
audit is being scheduled and to reclassify its interstate operation
classification within the Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS) to intrastate. The Agency is aware of this issue and will
ensure it is not carried over into the URS, which will resolve other
issues raised by MoDOT regarding the intrastate/interstate operation
classification. Because the issue is not caused by the URS registration
requirements, it is considered beyond the scope of the final rule and
will be dealt with separately. The Agency is developing and will
implement policies and procedures to address this unintended
consequence of changing the operation classification for New Entrant
Safety Assurance Program purposes. Any changes to the eFOTM that are
needed will be made as the policies and procedures are developed,
independently of this final rule.
Contradiction With PRISM Program State's International Registration
Plan
    MoDOT expressed concern about changing any requirement within the
PRISM procedures to suspend a license plate when an application for
USDOT registration is rejected during FMCSA's review because this could
contradict the terms of the IRP. This commenter stated that depending
on the timeframe of the vehicle registration and the reporting period,
applicants may be allowed to operate within two different registration
periods with estimated mileage only.
    FMCSA Response. As has historically been the case, PRISM States
impose vehicle registration sanctions when a motor carrier has been
prohibited from operating by FMCSA, normally when an out-of-service
order has been issued. An application rejected during FMCSA review,
however, is not the result of an out-of-service order.
    In this final rule, the applicant cannot begin operations or mark a
CMV with the USDOT Number until after the date of the Agency's written
notice that the USDOT Number has been activated. PRISM State vehicle
registration sanctions will continue to apply only in those cases when
FMCSA has issued an out-of-service order.
PRISM Program State Assistance With Electronic Filing
    Given the electronic filing requirement for Form MCSA-1 under URS,
MoDOT expressed concern about how it could help Missouri carriers with
the new registration filing or biennial updates associated with the
PRISM Program. MoDOT commented that it would not want to receive or
input information from a paper application form to assist its customers
in complying with the new registration requirement.
    FMCSA Response. As noted above, PRISM Program States should update
their IRP to comply with the new URS registration requirement,
including mandatory electronic filing. The Agency continues to believe
that mandatory electronic filing is feasible and would result in cost
and time savings to both applicants and FMCSA.\52\ In 2008, an
estimated 78 percent of U.S. motor carrier new applicants
electronically filed their initial registrations, and this number is
projected to steadily increase to 88 percent by 2016.\53\ Furthermore,
the Internet is publicly accessible via libraries and other public
facilities. FMCSA recognizes that this change could impose a burden on
entities that do not have readily accessible means to file
electronically or that do not wish to file electronically, and has
estimated these costs in detail in the Regulatory Evaluation.\54\ In
future years, the FMCSA estimates that only 12 percent of applicants
would be expected to still file by paper, if that option were
available. The estimated cost savings of a mandatory electronic filing
requirement that would accrue to other carriers and to the Agency is
much greater than the costs to those carriers that would choose to
continue to file by paper; mandatory electronic filing, therefore, is a
cost effective requirement. The Agency sought, but did not receive
comment on the SNPRM's Regulatory Evaluation's estimate of the impact
of mandatory electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See section 3.2 of the Final Regulatory Evaluation of the
Unified Registration System, which is available in the docket, for a
discussion of the costs and benefits of the mandatory electronic
filing.
    \53\ See Appendix A of the Final Regulatory Evaluation of the
Unified Registration System, which is available in the docket.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Impacts on UCR Agreement
    The SNPRM explained that Congress established the UCR Plan and
Agreement to replace the SSRS for registration of interstate motor
carriers with the States, and to ensure that States did not lose
revenues derived from the SSRS.\55\ The UCR Plan and Agreement
established fee schedules under which States collect fees from carriers
based on the number of qualifying CMVs in their fleets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 76 FR 66506, 66507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MoDOT pointed out unintended impacts of MCMIS and PRISM on the UCR
Agreement and urged the Agency to address them within the URS final
rule. For example, information on the Form MCS-150 is used to determine
fees paid to the States under the UCR Agreement. MoDOT requested that
FMCSA ensure that replacing Form MCS-150 with Form MCSA-1 would not
jeopardize such fee determination.
    OOIDA identified an existing problem that could inappropriately
create a liability to pay UCR fees for a year when a carrier was not
operating. Specifically, this commenter stated that when a carrier
attempts to provide the data needed to reactivate suspended or inactive
authority, the current system will not allow the numerical value of
``0'' (zero) miles to be inputted for the previous year even where
there has been no activity. The carrier must input a value of ``1''
mile in order for the system to accept the application. Having to make
any mileage declaration could create a liability to pay UCR fees for a
year where there was no operation. OOIDA recommended allowing carriers
to enter zero miles in the data field to resolve the issue.
    FMCSA Response. The Agency has revised Form MCSA-1 to ensure that
replacing Form MCS-150 with Form MCSA-1 will not jeopardize fee
determination under the UCR Agreement. A Federal statute, 49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(3), allows States to use the Form MCS-150 as a source of
information about the number of vehicles in a motor carrier's fleet for
purposes of determining a carrier's fees under the UCR Agreement. The
number of CMVs owned or operated for the purpose of determining the
level of fees charged for registering with the UCR Plan is either ``the
number of commercial motor vehicles the [carrier] or freight forwarder
has indicated it operates on its most recently filed MCS-150 or the
total number of such vehicles it owned or operated for the 12-month

period ending on June 30 of the year immediately prior to the
registration year of the Unified Carrier Registration System.'' \56\
The new Form MCSA-1 is the functional equivalent of the MCS-150. FMCSA
construes the reference at the end of the statutory quote above to the
``Unified Carrier Registration System'' as the UCR Agreement because
the Unified Carrier Registration System (which FMCSA calls the URS)
does not have a registration year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has revised Form MCSA-1 to collect information about the
number of vehicles in an applicant's fleet that are used solely in
intrastate commerce. See Form MCSA-1, Section B, question 22(d). This
revision is in response to comments from MoDOT about disparities in
data reported by motor carriers during UCR Agreement and FMCSA
registrations with regard to fleet size and suggestions for improving
the ability to reconcile these inconsistencies. FMCSA believes this
change will improve the ability to determine fees for the UCR Agreement
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3). This new entry will not increase
the information collection burden on applicants because they are able
to estimate with reasonable accuracy the number of vehicles operating
in interstate and intrastate commerce, respectively.
    With respect to the mileage issue, the Agency is modifying its
systems to accept a value of ``0'' (zero) in the mileage field and to
require motor carriers to report vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data for
the previous 12 months rather than for the previous calendar year. The
MCSA-1 Instructions (question 21) have been modified accordingly. These
changes are being implemented outside of this rulemaking process.

I. Transfers of Operating Authority and Concerns About Reincarnated
Carriers

    In the SNPRM, the Agency proposed to eliminate 49 CFR part 365,
subpart D, governing transfers of operating authority.\57\ FMCSA
reasoned that ICCTA removed the Agency's statutory authority to approve
transfers of authority and did not prohibit such transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------