ANPRM, Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System

43816
-

Federal Register : L’o!. 61. No
-

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAIYION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Chapter Ill
[FHWA Doclcet No. MC96251

4R’

Motor Carrier Replacement
Information/Registration System
AGENCY: Federal H~gl,way
Administration (FH\1’.4j, D@T.
ACTICW .A.dva::ce n0tic.e of prOpOSed
rulemaking (.4NPRM). request for
comment 5.

SUMMARY: This action is being taken in

I

to 4:15 p.m., e :., Monciay through
Frida!-. excert Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Congressional Mandate

RIN 2125AD91

i

1% : Monday. .4ugus: 26, 1996 i Proposed Kulss
__~---_

response to section 103 of the ICC
Termination Act of 1995. which, among
other things. added t provision
requirir.g the Secretary cf
Transportation to initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to replace the current
Department of Transponation
identificatioc number system, the single
State registration system. the
registratiom’licensing system, and the
financial responsibility information
system with a single. on-hne Federal
system. The review and improvement of
these information systems will benefit
the motor carrier industrv, the States.
the Federal government, and the public.
--The FHWA requests public comment
1 from interested persons OI? this action
and, specifically, responses to the
‘J- questions set forth in this document.
CF
r~) Poten:ially affected persons and entities
-who may wish to comment include:
members of the motor carrier, freight
’ forwarder, and transportation broker
m industries (and those entities providing
-financial responsibili?y t o t h e m ) ,
’ shippers. the States, and the public at
c large.
3 DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written signed
comments to FHWA Docket No.
MC9625. FHWA. Room 4232, Office of
Cheer Counsel. HCC.10. 400 Seventh
Street, SLV., Washington. DC 20590. All
comments received ~111 be available for
examination at the above address from
8:3O a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t.. Mondav
through Friday. except Federal hoiidavs.
Those desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard or envelope.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Dixie E. Horton, Office of Motor Carrier
Planning and Customer Liaison, (202)
3664340. or Ms. Grace Reidy, Office of
the Chief Counsel, (202) 3660761.
Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

The FHW.4 is initiatmg this
ruiemak!ng in response to a
congresslona! mandate contained rn
section 103 of the ICC Terrmnation Act
of 199.5. Pub. L 10488, iOR Stat. 888,
December 29. 1995. (the Act) which
added 49 U.S.C. 13908. Section 13908 nf
title 49, Lt.5 C.. directs the Secretary of
Transportation to issue a ruiemaking to
“replace the current Department of
Transportation identification number
system. the single State registration
system under section 1450-1, the
registration system contained in this
chapter [1391, and the financial
responsibility information system under
section 13906 with a single, on-line,
Federal system.” The registration/
iicensing system contained in 49 USC.
1390113905 is intended to replace the
operating authority requirement for forhire motor carriers, while also applying
to freight forwarders and transportation
brokers, under the interstate Commerce
Act, as amended (former!y 49 U.S.C.
10921 et seq.j.
The rulemaking required under 49
U.$.C. 13908. and a report to Congress
on its findings, must be completed
before january 1, 1998. According to the
Act, the new system is to serve as a
clearinghouse and depository of
information on and identification of all
foreign and domestic motor carriers,
brokers and freight forwarders, and
others required to register with the
Department of Transportation. Also, it is
to contain information on safety fitness
and compliance with the required ievels
of financial responsibility.
he-Act Background
With the passage of the Motor Carrier
Act of 1935, Pub. L. 74255, 47 Stat. 543,
the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC) was given regulatory authority
over the motor carrier industry. The ICC
was responsible for issuing operating
authority and permits and administering
matters related to insurance, safety, and
enforcement as they applied to for-hire
common and contract motor carriers.
The ICC retained economic oversight
over the for-hire segment of the motor
carrier industry and jurisdiction over
safety for both for-hire and private
motor carriers. until 1967 when the
Department of Transportation (DOT)
was created. Within the FHWA, the
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (which
subsequently became the Office of
Motor Carriers) was established for
motor carrier safety activities. The

F’H\Z’A began to rtiqu!rz 2:’ :.,otol
carriers engaged in interstate or fore-lg~t
commerce (not just for-hire) tn &?;I: d
USDOT identitiLation nt;rnber from !hr
agency for ss?ely purposes (53 r’R
18052, Ma\ 10, 1988).
The FHilA received authrsrlr: under
the Motor iarrirr Act of 19HL, &I!: !.
96-296. 94 Sta!. 820) to prescribe
minimum levels of financial
responsibility for certain motq,r carrier
classifications for safety reascns. The
motor carrier classific.atio;?s include,
For-hire interstate :notor c.zridrs of
property in vehicles with a er.?ss vehiLie
weight rating (GVWR) In excess of
10,000 Ibs.(includinp !CC-exempt).
private and for-hire intersta!e motor
carriers of certain hazardous materials:
and intrastate carriers of hazardous
materials in bulk. In 1982. the FHitA
received anthority under the Bus
Regulatory Reform Act (Pub. L. 97-26 1.
96 Stat. 1120) to reel:late the levels ot
financial responsib;iity covermg for-h;rr
motor carriers of passengers operating in
interstate or foreign commerce. Bv these
Acts. the number of motor carriers who
must meet financial responsibiiit:;
requirements as part of their safetv
compliance was expanded. There.are
approximately 170,320 carriers whose
minimum financial responsibility is
prescribed by the FH\vA. about fc\rtyfive percent of Evhlch were 31s~’
reguiated by the ICC. Under the FHW.9
regulations. these carriers are not
currently required to provide proof of
insurance cx other financial
responsibility in order tc receive a
USDOT identification number. Instead.
the FHWA verifies financial
responsibility comphance as a part of its
compliance review process. The actual
review of financial respon>ihilit!
requires that an FHWA safetv specialist
ensure that there is a valid eidorsement
(Form MCS-90 or Form MC%%). or
valid authorization to seif-insure, at the
motor carrier‘s place o!’ business that
indicates that the carrier possesses the
required financial responsibiiitv
coverage meeting the mmimunl
prescribed limits.
The ICC continued the economic
regulation of approximately 74.179 forhire interstate and foreign motor carriers
of property and passengers, which Were
also regulated by FHWA. by requiring
operating authority or permits and by
imposing more complex financlai
responsibility requirements as a
precondition to receiving and holding
these authorities or permits. The
financial responsibility requirements
were prescribed at 49 CFR Part 1043 and
took the form of certificates of
insurance, surety bonds, self-insurance.
endorsements, or trust agreements.

Monday
August 26, 1996

Part II

Department of
Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Ch. Ill
Motor Carrier Replacement Information/
Registration System; Proposed Rule;
Advance Notice

F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r / V o l . 6 1 , N o . 1 6 6 1 Mondav. A u e u s t 2 6 . 1 9 9 6 / ProDosed R u l e s
Carriers (as well as freight forwarders
and transportation brokers) regulated by
the ICC had to be in continuous
compliance or risk revocation of their
operating authority. Their insurance/
surety companies and financial
institutions had to give the ICC advance
notice of any cancellations. The ICC
maintained an automated monitoring
system of insurance compliance which
was updated continuously. In FY 1995,
for example, the ICC used its insurance
monitoring system to revoke the
operating authorities of approximately
4,629 for-hire motor carriers, many of
which were reinstated when they later
came into corn liance.
As a result oP the Act, Congress
terminated the ICC and transferred to
the FHWA the functions concerning the
ICC’s remaining licensing and financial
responsibility requirements. But the Act
converted the former operating
authority/permit system of the ICC into
a registration/licensing system and,
essentially, adopted the parameters of
the ICC’s then current insurance filing
and monitoring system into this
registration system. The Act also
adopted the existing Single State
Registration System (SSRS) which is
explained below. The savings provision
in section 204 of the Act preserved all
effective ICC regulations, rules, and
decisions until the Secretary finds
modification of these documents
warranted, thereby preserving the status
quo for the interim. The FHWA gave
public notice of the continued
effectiveness of these ICC documents in
61 FR 14372, April 1.1996. Congress
eliminated the ICC’s entry regulations in
favor of a Federal registration/licensing
system. Congress also elected to retain
the ICC’s proof of insurance system as
a condition for obtaining and retaining
a registration/license to operate as forhire motor carriers. Although for-hire,
“regulated” motor carriers represent
only some twenty-three percent of all
motor carriers, they transport fully half
of all freight moving in interstate
commerce. Private motor carriers of
nonhazardous property represent about
fifty-four percent of all motor carriers,
and are not subject to any Federal
financial responsibility requirement.
The rest of the universe is comprised of
private hazardous, ICC-exempt,
intrastate hazardous in-bulk, private
passenger, mail, and other
miscellaneous carriers.
Systems to be Replaced Through the
Rulemaking
The following discussion addresses
the four current systems that section
13908 requires to-be replaced with a
single, on-line Federal system.

43817

those 38 States that were collecting fees
for a vehicle identification stamp or
number
as of January 1, 1991. The
Currently, a Form MCS-150, Motor
ISTEA directed that the onlv fees
Carrier Identification Report, must be
charged could be those for 6ling proof
filed by all motor carriers operating in
of insurance (a pre-condition for
interstate or foreign commerce.
interstate operating authority), and that
Subsequent to filing, a motor carrier
the
fees were frozen to the amount a
receives a USDOT identification number
SSRS State charged as of November 15.
which must be displayed on all of the
1991. but in no case coutd they be
carrier’s self-propelled commercial
higher
than $10 per vehicle (including
motor vehicles (CMVs). 49 CFR 390.21.
reciprocal agreements). In 1993. the ICC
These numbers are used by the FHWA
issued rules for the SSRS States to
to track the motor carrier’s safety
follow. When challenged, these rules
performance. The universe of carriers
were upheld by the court. with one
subject to the DOT number
exception concerning who makes the
identification system includes
official copies of the Base State-issued
approximately 320,857 motor carriers,
receipt. Nat’/ Ass’n of Regulatory L’til.
including some 6,600 bus carriers,
Comm’rs v. ICC, 41 F. 3d 721 (D.C. Cir.
engaged in interstate or foreign
1994). That exception was revised by
commerce that are subject to the Federal the ICC to direct the States rather than
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
the carriers to make the copies, although
Attached, as Appendices A through C,
this rule’s implementation was delayed
respectively, are copies of Forms MCSat the request of the States. Ex Parte No.
150, MC!%90, and MCS-82, the
MC-100 (Sub-No. 61, Single State
required certificate of insurance or
Insurance Registration, served July 3 1,
surety bond endorsements for covered
1995. The SSRS States continue to
property carriers, which display the
operate under these ICC-issued rules
information required by those forms.
today. 49 CFR 1023.
In 49 USC. 14504, Congress
2. Single State Registration System
continued the SSRS with essentially the
Under 49 U.S.C. 14504
same statutory provisions established in
In 1965, Congress authorized the
ISTEA, with the exception that it is now
States to police unauthorized operations under the supervision of the Secretary
by interstate for-hire motor carriers, and and administered by the FHWA. The
allowed the States to enforce this
States may require for-hire interstate
provision through a multi-State filing
motor carriers that register under 49
system of operating authority
USC. Chapter 139 to: File proof of
registration, the so-called “bingo stamp” Federally-required financial
program. Under the bingo stamp
responsibility with their Base State: pay
program, participating States were
their Base State such amounts of fee
allowed to collect registration fees from
revenues that will be allocated among
motor carriers on a per vehicle basis to
all the SSRS States in which the motor
administer the program and, through
carriers operate: and file the names of
enabling State statutes, to enforce the
local agents for service of process. The
program by issuing citations for failing
Secretary is to maintain standards for
to register. Because the bingo stamp
the SSRS. Because Congress recognized
program was perceived as too costly,
the potential loss of revenues by
and a regulatory burden on interstate
participating States, as long as the SSRS
motor carriers (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102- States follow the prescribed standards.
404. lO2d Cong., 1st sess. 437(1991)),
their actions will not be deemed an
the Congress, in the Intermodal Surface
unreasonable burden on interstate
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
commerce. The savings provision in
(ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat.
section 204 of the Act preserves the
19141, established the SSRS and
existing ICC SSRS standards/rules until
directed the ICC to implement
the Secretary modifies them. Attached,
regulations converting the bingo stamp
as Appendices D and E, respectively, are
program to a Base State insurance
copies of SSRS Forms RS-1 and RS-2,
registration program. The SSRS, under
which display the information required
the supervision of the ICC, required ICC- by those forms.
regulated carriers to: File proof of
3. 49 U.S.C. Chapter 139 Registration
operating authority and insurance with
System
their Base State; pay the Base State
The Act, as stated above, converted
filing fees that are subject to allocation
the former ICC certificates of operating
among all the participating SSRS States
authority and permits granted to
in which the carriers operate; and keep
common and contract motor carriers of
a copy of the receipt issued by their
Base State in each of their CMVs.
property and passengers into a
Participation in the SSRS was limited to simplified Federal registration/licensing
1. Department of Transportation
Identification Number System

43818

F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r I V o l . 6 1 , N o . 166 / M o n d a y , A u g u s t 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 1 Proposed Rules

system under Chapter 139 of title 49,
U.S.C., where for-hire registrants must
demonstrate their willingness and
ability to comply with Federal safety,
financial responsibility, and other
relevant regulations. There were
approximately 74.179 for-hire motor
carriers that fell under the former ICC’s
oversight (additionally, 733 freight
forwarders, and 9,717 brokers), which
are now deemed registered under the
new FHWA registration/licensing
system, pursuant to a grandfather clause
in 49 U.S.C. 13905(a). The Secretary
may withhold, revoke, or suspend a
registration for noncompliance with
safety and financial responsibility
regulations. Although the Act
eliminated the distinction between
common and contract carriage, the
Secretary may register such motor
carriers separately until the replacement
system is implemented. The Chapter
139 Federal registration/licensing
system requires domestic and foreign
motor carriers of property and
passengers, freight forwarders, and
transportation brokers to register with
the FHWA. While this advance notice of
a rulemaking primarily addresses issues
relating to motor carriers of property
because they comprise the vast majority
of registrants under this system, this
notice also includes motor carriers of
passengers,+reight forwarders, and
transportation brokers. The effective
period of the registration of all
registrants is to be determined by the
Secretary. Filing proof of adequate
financial responsibility coverage is a
precondition to registration. Attached,
as Appendices F through H,
respectively, are copies of Forms OP-1,
OP-lP, and OP-1FF which display the
information required by those forms in
order to register.
4. 49 U.S.C. Section 13906 Financial
Responsibility Information System
As part of the Chapter 139 (sections
13901-l 3905) registration/licensing
system. Congress retained the existing
ICC financial responsibility
requirements, with both statutory (49
U.S.C. 13906) and regulatory (section
204 of the Act) provisions. All for-hire
registrants, including domestic and
foreign motor carriers, transportation
brokers, and freight forwarders, as a
precondition to registering, must adhere
to financial responsibility provisions.
Bonds, trust agreements, and certificates
of insurance, as well as self-insurance
documentation. are prescribed in ICC
forms and regulations. Also, service of
process information. under 49 U.S.C.
13304, is required for registration.
Congress retained the requirement that
notices of cancellations of insurance

must be filed in advance with the
FHWA and that prompt replacement
coverage is required to retain the
registration. Procedures for the
Secretary in revocation proceedings are
set forth in 49 U.S.C. 13905. Attached,
as Appendices I through 0, respectively,
are copies of Forms BMC-91, BMC-91X,
BMC-82, BMC-83, BMC-34, BMC-84
and BOC-3, which display information
required by 49 U.S.C:13906 (and
section 13304). They currently are being
filed on paper or electronically (except
the Form BOC-3).
The effect of the Chapter 139
registration/licensing and financial
responsibility information systems is
the continued monitoring of about
twenty-three percent of the motor
carrier ind::stry (formerly ICC-regulated,
for-hire car: ers) for current compliance
with the insclrance or other financial
responsibility requirements. These two
systems are updated frequently and are
primarily driven.by insurance
compliance data. The goal is to ensure
sufficient financial responsibility
coverage to compensate the public for
liability arising from personal injury,
property damage, cargo loss or damage,
and property broker defaults: While the
SSRS generally reflects the Federal
registration/licensing and insurance
systems, there are some differences. For
example, unlike the continuous
updating required at the Federal level,
the SSRS requires only an annual filing
of financial responsibility information
with the Base State; the motor carrier is
under no duty to update that
information during the year. Lastly, the
Federal registration/licensing and
financial responsibility requirements for
the formerly ICC regulated, for-hire
motor carriers are-obviously more
stringent than for the private and
exempt motor carriers who simply file
a Form MCS-150.
49 U.S.C. 13998 Rulemaking
In requiring the replacement of these
four information/registration systems,
Congress directed the Secretary to
consider, at a minimum, the following
items:
1. Whether to integrate the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13304 (service
of process information) into the new
system;
2. Funding for State enforcement of
motor carrier safety regulations;
3. Whether the existing SSRS is
duplicative and burdensome;
4. The justification and need for
collecting the statutory fee for such
system under 49 U.S.C.
14504(c)(Z)(B)(iv) (the fee system
established
by
~-.
3. the ^SSRS States);
5. .Ibe public safety:

6. The efficient delivery of
transportation services; and
7. How, and under what conditions,
to extend the registration system to
private motor carriers and to motor
carriers exempt under 49 U.S.C. 13502,
13503, and 13506 (exempt
transportation between Alaska and other
States, exempt motor vehicle
transportation in terminal areas, and
miscellaneous motor carrier
transportation exemptions,
respectively).
Under 49 U.S.C. 13908, the Secretary
may also establish a fee system for the
registration/licensing and filing of
evidence of financial responsibility
under the new replacement system. If
the fee system is put in place. the fees
collected must cover the costs of
operating and upgrading the registration
system, including all personnel costs
associated with the system. The fees
collected for this system may be
credited to the DOT appropriations
account for the purposes for which such
fees are collected, and will be available
until they are expended.
If the Secretary finds that the SSRS
should not continue, the Secretary may
prevent a State from imposing any
financial responsibility filing
requirements or fees that are for the
same purpose as filings or fees the
Secretary requires under the new
replacement system. However, the
Secretary may not take this action
unless, through collected fees, he can
provide the States with at least as much
revenue as they received in Fiscal Year
1995 under the SSRS that was in effect
on the day before the effective date of
the Act. In addition, all States must
receive a minimum apportionment.
The Secretarv must comulete the
rulemaking by january 1, lL998, two
years after the effective date of the Act.
The Secretary may implement such
changes as are considered appropriate
and in the public interest. Finally, the
Secretary must transmit to Congress a
report on any findings of the rulemaking
and the changes the DOT decides to
implement, together with
recommendations for any proposed
legislative changes.
Request For Comments
The purpose of this ANPRM is to
gather information from a broad
spectrum of comments. One approach to
solicit comments is to focus on the
systems themselves, i.e., the four-named
systems to be replaced by a single
system. See Section I, Specific
Questions for Comments. below. By
carefully examining each of these
systems, components that should be
retained. modified, or eliminated in the

F e d e r a l Resister i V o l . 6 1 . N o . 1 6 6 I Mondav, August 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 I Proposed Rules
replacement svstem can be identified.
The replacement system may have to fit
into a very complicated set of existing
or pending systems.
Crucial to this undertaking will be the
ll~lrnher of prac.::c:al suggestions, valid
data. and constiut:tlc-e comments that
are recxlved. T’;erefore, a second
IpproaLh to soliciting comments is
offered here which is r1luc.h more
,+neral III nature and not bound by
details dnd specifics of the information
systems themselves. Rather, its focus is
on advisable policies and appropriate
programs within the c.ontext of this
rulemaking. See Section II, Specific
Questions for Comments, below. How
should nlotor carriers he treated
regarding matters of registration and
financial responsibility? Are
registrationilicensing and financial
responsibility coverage necessary’? Does
it depend upon the type of motor
carrier? What are the roles for the
Federal and State governments, as well
as private Industry, in these matters?
LVhat is best for the public? What is the
bare essential information needed from
motor carriers? How can this essential
information be solicited in a cost
effective manner? Once policies and
needs are identified, programs and
requirements will follow. Afterwards,
an information system can be designed
to accommodate them. Commenters may
respond to either approach or simply
submit other information relevant to
this task.
Specific Questions for Comment
I. Four Existing Systems--Replacement
System

X. The US DOT Identification Number
System
1. Should the FHWA retain the US
DOT identification number system as is?
Who should be included as contributors
to and users of this system? How could
the system be improved? Should Forms
&KS-150. MCS-90 and MC!%82 ( See
Appendices A through C) he retained as
is. modified, or eliminated? Do they
capture only the necessary information?
Do they capture enough information?
Should the information in Form MCS150 be updated periodically? If so, at
what Intervals?
2. Should all interstate motor carriers
use the US DOT identification number
system and should the separate
registration svstem for for-hire carriers
be eliminated?
3. Should all interstate motor carriers
uslnq the US DOT identification number
system pay a filing fee for maintaining
a current register?
4. Do random compliance reviews
alone constitute sufficient monitoring of

financial responsibility compliance?
Should the reviews alone replace the
continuous financial responsibility
monitoring system in 49 U.S.C. 13906’~
Is there a valid relationship between
safety and financial responsibility
coverage? Is there credible evidence that
underfunded motor carriers and
repeated financial responsibility
coverage violations by motor carriers
indicate problem carriers’? Please submit
such examples and examples to the
contrary and, if possible,
documentation.
5. Is lt feasible to have the States or
the private sector, as contractors of the
Federal government, operate the US
DOT identification number system?
Please comment on how this could work
on a national scale.
6. Are there existing information
systems-private or government- into
which the US DOT identification
number system could be integrated?
B. 49 U.S.C. Sections 13901-13905
Registration System
1. How does this registration system
improve upon the former ICC system of
operating authority? How can it be
developed to assure improvement? Who
should be required to register and why?
Should Form OP-1 (See Appendix F) be
retained as it is? What changes, if any,
should be made? Does it capture only
the necessary information? Does it
require too much information? Does it
require enough information? Please
explain.
2. Should all interstate motor carriers
be required to register in this system?
Should this include private and exempt
motor carriers? Would this inclusion be
practical and cost efficient?
3. Is it feasible for the States or the
private sector to operate this registration
system as contractors of the Federal
government? Assume all registrants
would be issued a USDOT identification
number, could the States or the private
sector do this and how could it work?
4. Should both the USDOT
identification number system for private
and exempt motor carrieis and the forhire registration system operate
separately in the replacement system?
How could they be combined?
5. Should transportation brokers and
freight forwarders still be required to
register? Should their registration forms
[See Appendices F and H, respectively)
he changed and why?
6. Should motor carriers of passengers
be treated differently from motor
carriers of property for registration
purposes and why’? Should their
registration form (See Appendix G) be
changed and why?

43819

7. What circumstances should cause
the FHWA to exercise authority to
suspend registration, for what duration.
and what process should apply?
C. 49 U.S.C. Section 13906 Financial
Responsibility System
1. Should the FHWA continue this
system as is? Who should he included
in this system and why’? Should the
FHWA imlude private and exempt
motor carriers? LVhat requirements
chould apply? How could the system he
improved? How could these financial
responsibility and service of process
information forms (See Appendices I
through 0) be improved? Do they
capture only the necessary information?
Do they ask for unnecessary
information? Do they ask for enough
information?
2. Should self-insurance continue to
be offered? How could it be improved?
Should service of process agent
information continue to be required?
Should this requirement be expanded to
private and exempt motor carriers?
3. Do insurance companies or other
entities use the information on the
financial responsibility forms? For what
reasons is this information useful? Is
there another source for this
information?
4. Should financial reponsibility
information be contained on bills of
lading and the financial responsibility
requirements for registration be
eliminated? Would this work?
5. Is continuous insurance monitoring
of for-hire carriers cost effective? Is it in
the public interest? Should all insurance
information be required to be filed
electronically? Should all motor carriers
be required to offer proof of financial
responsibility compliance when
registering? Should they only be
required to update their status annually?
Is continuous monitoring needed for all
motor carriers or just for for-hire
carriers?
6. Should freight forwarders and
transportation brokers continue to be
required to follow financial
responsibility requirements?
7. Are private and exempt motor
carriers subject to any financial
responsibility requirements
(compulsory insurance) at the State
level? If so, is compliance assured? Is
this requirement sufficient to protect
against the potential consequences of
motor carrier accidents? Is compliance
tied to State registration?
8. Should motor carriers of passengers
be required to be treated differently
from motor carriers of property for
financial responsibility purposes? Why!

43820
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 166 I Monday, August 26. 1996 1 Proposed Rules
-_____
D. Single State Registration System
(SSRS)

funding programs supported by that
revenue? Alternatively, what programs
would be cut if the SSRS revenues were
not replaced?

7. Please submit a conceptual design
for the replacement system which
adheres to 49 U.S.C. 13908. Can a
1. Should SSRS continue as is? If
replacement system (and fee system) be
States have access to financial
constructed
that will cover operating
responsibilitv and registration
E. Conceptual Design Suggestions
costs and match SSRS revenues for
information for interstate for-hire
1. Given the large amount of change
FY199.5, and not be an unreasonable
carriers, is SSRS needed? How could it
within the motor carrier industry due to burden on interstate commerce?
be im,:roved? Should Forms RS-1 and
8. Does the universe of motor carriers
2 (Set: ;ippendices D and E) be retained, recently passed legislation, and the
transitional stages of various programs
affect the capacity and effectiveness of
modified, or eliminated? Should a new
such as the International Registration
the replacement system? If so, how can
SSRS system be expanded to all States?
a system be designed to handle the
2. Who uses SSRS information and for Plan. the International Fuel Tax
Agreement, the Commercial Vehicle
appropriate number of motor carriers for
what purposes? Are there other sources
Information System, among others, is it
the public good rather than be driven
for this information? Is this information
advisable at this stage to combine the
only by its capacity limitations? If the
necessary? How do the SSRS States use
four existing systems, eliminating the
statute is interpreted to require
this SSRS information?
overlap and unnecessarily required
inclusion of private and exempt motor
3. How useful is Federal financial
information for the replacement system? carriers in the replacement system to
responsibility coverage filing
Should the replacement system be
some degree, what degree should that
information for State enforcement
designed independently of the
be? Should they have fewer
purposes. especially where there is no
components of the four existing systems requirements than the for-hire motor
immediate updating required even
that are to be replaced?
carriers? Could they be treated as a
when there is a change in the coverage
2. Is a combined, national
subsystem for the larger system? Or
status of a motor carrier? Do SSRS States
replacement system run by the States
should it be the reverse?
follow-up to see if the copy of the
9. What features should the
financial responsibility form filed at the with Federal standards and access
feasible or advisable? What if the private replacement system have’! Should the
ICC or FWHA. and sent to the Base
sector operates it? Is there a preference
capability of being able to revoke a
State. was actually accepted by that
registration for noncompliance with
Federal agency and not later rejected for between a “National” (nationwide but
not necessarily Federally-run) or a
financial responsibility requirements be
cause? How important is real-time data
“Federal” (centralized, Federally-run)
retained? Why and for whom? How
to State enforcement?
system?
would this capability affect the
-1. Would SSRS States be willing to
3. Should the replacement system be
feasibility of the system?
leave the SSRS if their revenues from it
responsive to daily changes in a motor
10. Who should have access to this
were matched ur exceeded but they had
carrier’s financial responsibility status,
data and how should they have access?
to operate the replacement system-as
or be updated annually? Are there other Should there be a fee for access?
nq: :

“-dr.3Doct
..

22,=3;?:9
x

zr l!w Pnnc~psl lor Ihe supplyto of transponwron pnor to the due rush Iwmmauon becomes efftcwe
Thr ncripl of lhls film; b? the Commsmon cerufics that a Broker Surety Bond has been tsswd by the company
idenllflcd 0,: Ike fsce Of lhrs form. and that such company ,I qruhllcd to make !klr f&o6 under Secuon 1043 6 Of TiUe 49 Of
Ihe Code of F-deral Replsc,o,,s

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 1 Monday, August 26. 1996 I Prooosed Rules
Falsification of this document can result in criminal penalties prescribed under 48 U.S.C. 1001,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Principal and Surety have executed this instrument on the
day of

1 19

PRINCIPAL
Name

SURETY

BY

BY
(Signarurr a n d Tiflr)

Witness

[SEAL]

Name

(Slgnarurr a n d Tirlr)

Witness

43881

43862

Federal Register I Vol. 61, No. 166 I Monday, August 26, 1996 I Proposed Rules

Federal Register 1 Vol. 61, No. 166 I Monday, August 26, 1996 I Proposed Rules

[FR Dot. 96-21351 Filed 8-23-96; 8:45 am]
BlLUNG CODE 4910-22-~

43883