OOSC, Part IV, Item 2, Active Intrastate USDOT Number - Operating Interstate

When completing their MCS-150, carriers have the option to select that their operation is "Interstate," "Intrastate Only (HM)," or "Intrastate Only (Non-HM)." Carriers that select INTERstate are subject to new entrant safety audit requirements, etc. Carriers that are INTRAstate are not subject to all of those requirements. Carriers are often encountered that have active USDOT numbers, but are registered as being INTRAstate and are inspected while operating in INTERstate commerce (ie: A North Carolina-based carrier is registered as INTRAstate, but is stopped in Virginia operating in INTERstate commerce.)

Some companies are mistakenly led to believe that since they have a USDOT number, that they're fine to operate in INTERstate commerce, even though they have an INTRAstate USDOT number. Most are inadvertent, but the door is open for a carrier to register as INTRAstate to simply avoid the new entrant audit process, to subvert a state's effort to monitor UCR compliance, etc. The question at hand is how should these scenarios be handled? It is my experience that different jurisdictions - or even different officers within the same jurisdiction - handle the situation differently. Some states are citing a violation of 392.9b. However, a strict reading of that gives rise to the question about having an "active" USDOT number since they're active, they're just not INTERstate. Some states are citing 390.19T for not updating the MCS150 to reflect INTERstate operations. It should be noted that this problem was also submitted via an Issue Request in 2021 by Louisiana (21-015-DRV). In their request, they also cite the problem associated with utilizing 392.9b in regards to it possibly being an OOS violation on second and subsequent violations.

I am requesting that CVSA provide operational guidance for how to handle a carrier that is inspected while conducting INTERstate commerce operations, but yet they have an active USDOT number that is registered as being INTRAstate. I believe this would result in more consistent enforcement of the regulations and would provide clarity to industry.