Where an applicant files new application for for-hire operating authority for property less than a year after same legal entity’s (but using a different registered trade name) U. S. DOT Number authorizing motor private carrier transportation is revoked because of noncompliance with FMCSA’s new entrant safety audit (NESA) requirements resulting in order to cease all interstate transportation, FMCSA’s Agency Decisionmaker by Delegation (Agency Official) concludes Applicant is a reincarnation for the improper purpose of avoiding compliance with the NESA requirements and Order to Cease. The Agency Official thus denies Applicant’s appeal of FMCSA Office of Registration’s determination rejecting application for operating authority registration.[1]
New Trade Name Did Not Cleanse Reincarnation Taint
FMCSA concludes that a single legal entity can be a “reincarnation” merely by change of its trade name. According to the Final Order, “Applicant represented that the Application was for ‘New Registration,’ which would create a new carrier with a separate U.S. DOT number and, if applicable, MC number. Whether the same legal entity controls both carriers does not change the fact that two separate entities would then exist in FMCSA’s registration system.”
The Agency Official agrees with the Office of Registration’s determination that by attempting to register the same legal entity using a new trade name under a ‘New Registration’ after its previous registration authorizing motor private carriage under a different trade name had been revoked; refusing to take the necessary steps to bring the entity’s operation into compliance with an Order to Cease; and unwillingness to remedy the entity’s registration under two U.S. DOT numbers demonstrates that Applicant made the filing to avoid the effects of the Order to Cease.
FMCSA may determine that one or more motor carriers are reincarnated if there is substantial continuity between entities such that one is merely a continuation of the other. The Agency’s policy on granting, withholding, suspending, amending or revoking operating authority registration has long held that creating a “new identity” to avoid previous suspension or revocation of registration, a statutory or regulatory requirement, FMCSA order or a history of past violations may constitute “reincarnation,” if made for an improper purpose, and will result in withholding a grant of authority on public policy grounds. The practice of ‘reincarnating’ to avoid regulatory requirements and evade enforcement impairs FMCSA’s ability to carry out its safety mission and creates an unacceptable safety risk for the motoring public.
Even if the carriers are substantially the same, however, there must be evidence to establish an improper purpose for the reincarnation.
The Applicant admitted in its appeal that it is the same company operating under different trade names with the same ownership, address, and management. The Agency Official concludes the admission, coupled with close temporal proximity to the NESA Order to Cease and filing date is sufficient evidence of substantial continuity to support reincarnation for an improper purpose.
No Required Disclosure of Certain Regulated Licensee on Application to New Authority
The case is also notable because, unlike most appeals involving disputes over the Office of Registration’s determinations that the applicant “failed to disclose” relationships to other regulated entities, in this case, the Applicant was correct in not disclosing its motor private carrier registration under its earlier trade name; answering the Application’s relationship question “no.” This is because the statute which requires disclosure, as the Agency Official holds, requires disclosure of certain regulated entities but the list does not include domestic motor private carriers owned by U.S. citizens. The Agency Official holds the Office of Registration’s determination to withhold registration on the basis that the Applicant failed to disclose the earlier registration as motor private carrier under the other trade name was error.
Unfortunately for Applicant, the Office of Registration’s determination is not reversable because the Agency Official concludes the Applicant is a reincarnation for improper purpose, the administrative appeal is denied on alternate grounds.
Takeaway
The importance of considering the ramifications of filing a new application carefully and whether other avenues to achieve the same objective may be pursued without running afoul of agency statutes and regulations cannot be overstated.
Dated: Sudbury, MA
July 21, 2026
Andresen & Borovick, LLP
323 Boston Post Road
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
www.abmasslaw.com
Tel: (978) 443-6868
The foregoing is designed to provide general information based on a summary of legal principles for clients and friends of the firm. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Companies and individuals should consult with legal counsel before taking any action based on these principles to ensure their applicability in a given situation. The information presented here and on our website should not be construed to be legal advice or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Copyright © 2026 Andresen & Borovick, LLP. All rights reserved.
[1] In Matter United Civil LLC dba United Civil, Dock No. FMCSA-2026-0793-0004 (Final Order on Appeal of Decision Rejecting Application for Operating Authority Registration) sv’d 7-17-26.