Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders, and Brokers |
|---|
|
T.F. Scott Darling III
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
November 28, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70839-70843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28076]
[[Page 70839]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 387
[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0211]
RIN 2126-AB74
Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders,
and Brokers
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it is considering a rulemaking that would
increase the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor
carriers, including liability coverage for bodily injury or property
damage; establish financial responsibility requirements for passenger
carrier brokers; implement financial responsibility requirements for
brokers and freight forwarders, and revise existing rules concerning
self-insurance and trip insurance. FMCSA seeks public comments on these
topics.
DATES: You must submit comments on or before February 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2014-0211 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean P. Gallagher, Office of Policy,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-366-3740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM (FMCSA-2014-0211), indicate the specific section of this document
to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion
or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or
by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0211, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may draft a notice of proposed rulemaking based on
your comments and other information and analysis.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0211, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document 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., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
C. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
II. Background and Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility
Under 49 U.S.C. 31138 and 31139, FMCSA is authorized to establish
minimum levels of financial responsibility at or above the minimum
levels set by Congress. FMCSA's regulations (49 CFR part 387 subparts A
and B) currently require for-hire property and passenger motor carriers
and all motor carriers transporting hazardous materials to maintain
financial responsibility at the statutory minimums set forth in 49
U.S.C. 31138 and 31139. Part 387, Subpart C, requires for-hire motor
carriers subject to the Agency's jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. 13501 to
file evidence of financial responsibility with FMCSA.\1\ FMCSA seeks
public comment on whether to exercise its discretion to increase the
minimum levels of financial responsibility, and, if so, to what levels.
Through a separate rulemaking initiative,\2\ FMCSA intends to propose
extending those minimum financial responsibility requirements to all
private motor carriers of property and passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 387.303(b)(1)(i) requires $300,000 in financial
responsibility as opposed to $750,000 where the entire fleet
consists of vehicles under 10,001 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR).
\2\ MAP-21 Enhancements and Other Updates to the Unified
Registration System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government has long required motor carriers, brokers,
and freight forwarders to maintain certain levels of financial
responsibility, either through insurance, a bond, or other financial
security, as a means to protect the public in the event of a crash and
to protect carriers and shippers against dishonest and financially
unstable brokers. The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 first directed the
establishment of Federal rules and regulations for interstate motor
carrier operations that govern ``security for the protection of the
public.'' Congress provided the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
one of FMCSA's predecessor agencies, the authority to issue these
regulations. Over time, both Congress and the agencies have taken
numerous actions
[[Page 70840]]
to address the levels of financial responsibility.
Motor Carrier Act of 1935
The first major legislative directive regarding financial
responsibility levels for the motor carrier industry was the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935, Pub. L. 74-255. In section 215, Congress directed
that ``no [common carrier] certificate or [contract carrier] permit
shall be issued to a motor carrier or remain in force, unless such
carrier complies with such reasonable rules and regulations as the
[Interstate Commerce] Commission shall prescribe governing security for
the protection of the public.'' The ICC also decided that a person
seeking authority to operate as a broker must furnish ``a bond or other
security approved by the Commission, in an amount of not less than
$5,000, and in such form as will ensure the financial responsibility of
such broker and the supplying of authorized transportation in
accordance with the contracts, agreements, or arrangements therefore.''
\3\
Motor Carrier Act of 1980
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 1 FR 1156 at 1161 (1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next significant legislation regarding financial responsibility
was the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA), Pub. L. 96-296, which largely
deregulated the motor carrier industry. Section 30 of the MCA set
minimum levels of financial responsibility for property-carrying motor
carriers. The MCA also gave the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
the authority to reduce those levels, by regulation, for a ``phase-in
period'' of up to 2 years, provided the reduced levels would not
adversely affect public safety and would prevent a serious disruption
in transportation service.
The MCA set the minimum financial responsibility level at $750,000
for the transportation of property, $5 million for the transportation
of certain hazardous materials, and $1 million for the transportation
of hazardous materials consisting of ``any material, oil, substance or
waste'' that is not subject to the $5 million limit.\4\ Pursuant to the
MCA, DOT opted to phase in implementation of the new minimum financial
responsibility levels. DOT set those levels at $500,000 for property
(non-hazardous), $1,000,000 for certain hazardous materials, and
$500,000 for other hazardous materials not subject to the $1,000,000
limit.\5\ Pursuant to Section 406(a) of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-424, DOT extended the phase-in
period through the end of 1984. 49 FR 27288. As of January 1, 1985, DOT
set the levels at the lowest levels authorized by the MCA, and the
levels have remained unchanged since.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These amounts are codified at 49 U.S.C. 31139(b), (d).
\5\ 46 FR 30974, 30983 (June 11, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting minimum levels of financial responsibility was intended to
address two concerns, first, to protect the ability of the public to
recover damages in the event of crashes and, second, to ease concerns
that competition in the largely deregulated industry could result in
cost-cutting at the expense of minimum safety standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ H.R. Rep. No. 96-1069, at 43 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982
The Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (the Bus Act), Pub. L. 97-
261, was signed September 20, 1982. Section 18 established minimum
levels of financial responsibility covering public liability and
property damage for the transportation of passengers by for-hire motor
vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.
Like the MCA, the Bus Act provided the Secretary with the authority
to temporarily lower the required financial responsibility amount below
the statutory minimum for up to a 2-year ``phase-in period,'' provided
the reduced levels would not adversely affect public safety and would
prevent a serious disruption in transportation service.
The Bus Act set minimum financial responsibility levels at $5
million for carriers operating vehicles with a seating capacity of 16
or more passengers and $1,500,000 for carriers operating vehicles with
a seating capacity of 15 or fewer.\7\ In 1983 the Secretary opted to
phase in the new insurance requirements. The ``phase-in'' levels were
$2,500,000 for carriers operating vehicles with a seating capacity of
16 or more passengers and $750,000 for carriers operating vehicles with
a seating capacity of 15 or fewer. Those levels were in place for 2
years before being raised to $5 million and $1,500,000, respectively.
These were the lowest limits the statute authorized DOT to require.\8\
The statutory minimums went into effect on November 19, 1985 (48 FR
52684) and have remained unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These amounts are codified at 49 U.S.C. 31138(b).
\8\ Section 18 of the Bus Act; see also 48 FR 52679, 52682
(quoting DOT conclusion that ``the lowest levels allowed in the Act
are sufficient.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current minimum levels of financial responsibility are
summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1--Current Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Bodily
Injury/Property Damage by Type of Regulated Carrier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated carrier category Minimum level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Hire Interstate General Freight Carriers <10,001 $300,000
pounds GVWR............................................
For-Hire Interstate General Freight Carriers............ 750,000
For-Hire and Private Carriers of Oil and Certain Other 1,000,000
Types of Hazardous Materials...........................
For-Hire and Private Carriers of Other Hazardous 5,000,000
Materials..............................................
For-Hire Passenger Carriers (Seating Capacity <=15)..... 1,500,000
For-Hire Passenger Carriers (Seating Capacity >15)...... 5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
On July 6, 2012, the President signed MAP-21 \9\ into law. Section
32104 of MAP-21 directed the Secretary to issue a report on the
appropriateness of (1) the current minimum financial responsibility
requirements for the transportation of passengers and property; and (2)
the current bond and insurance requirements for freight forwarders and
brokers, including for brokers for motor carriers of passengers. FMCSA
issued this report in April 2014.\10\ Section 32104 also directed the
Secretary to determine the appropriateness of these requirements every
4 years and to issue similar reports to Congress. In its April 2014
report, FMCSA concluded that the current financial responsibility
[[Page 70841]]
minimums are inadequate to cover the costs of some crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Public Law 112-141.
\10\ http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Financial-Responsibility-Requirements-Report-Enclosure-FINAL-April%202014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility
FMCSA's report to Congress included findings from a study,
Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor
Vehicles,\11\ conducted by DOT's John A. Volpe Transportation Systems
Center (Volpe), assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of those
levels in meeting carrier liabilities. The Volpe study examined the
following in connection with potentially increasing FMCSA's financial
responsibility requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/study-financial-responsibility-requirements-commercial-motor-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher compensation for crash victims,
transferring more of the costs of crashes back to motor
carriers,
reductions in truck- and bus-involved crashes,
costs imposed on CMV operators and the insurance industry,
and
other relevant considerations.
While the study's findings provided preliminary support for increasing
the current levels of financial responsibility, the Agency is seeking
additional information. Highlights from the study include:
[ssquf] Catastrophic motor carrier-related crashes are relatively
rare. Based on limited available claims data, it was estimated that
catastrophic crashes, which are defined as crashes resulting in claims
for injury, death, and/or property damages that exceed the current
minimum levels of financial responsibility, comprised less than one
percent of all CMV crashes (about 3,300 of 330,000 total crashes per
year).
[ssquf] Costs for severe and critical injury crashes can easily
exceed $1 million. The analysis reveals that two categories of injury
crash (severe and critical) yield damages of more than $1 million.
[ssquf] Insurance premiums have declined in real terms since the
1980s. The analysis revealed the stability of insurance rates over the
last three decades. Insurance rates for the same level of coverage
(e.g., $750,000 or $1 million) have declined slightly on average in
nominal terms, hovering around $5,000 per power unit (truck or bus).
Additionally, inflation-adjusted premium rates have also declined over
the same period.
[ssquf] Current insurance limits do not adequately cover
catastrophic crashes, mainly because of increased medical costs. Since
1985, when the current minimum levels were established, the real value
of insurance coverage has decreased. Because medical costs have
increased significantly, insurance coverage at the statutory minimum
levels does not cover as much of the cost of a catastrophic crash as it
once did. From 1985 to 2013, the medical consumer price index (CPI)
increased at a significantly higher rate than the core CPI (4.9 percent
annually for medical care, compared to 2.8 percent for core). Thus, had
minimum financial responsibility levels kept pace with core CPI or
medical CPI, by 2013, these minimum levels would have been higher.
[ssquf] Comprehensive data on premiums that motor carriers would
incur to meet higher coverage limits were not readily available. The
insurance underwriting process is specific to individual motor carriers
and there are no uniform pricing practices (other than limits that
might be imposed by State regulations). The insurance industry is
protective of its pricing data and underwriting processes for
competitive reasons. Accordingly, available information was largely
generic and limited. Motor carrier risk managers were also reluctant to
disclose their insurance premium expenses. The study, therefore, did
not assess the regulatory cost of potential insurance premium
increases.
FMCSA's report to Congress also included research findings from
other organizations which have studied the appropriateness of the
current minimum insurance levels, such as the Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation (PIRE), the Alliance for Driver Safety and
Security, Inc. (Trucking Alliance), and the American Trucking
Associations (ATA).
PIRE published a report \12\ that examined the adequacy of the
current $750,000 minimum for large trucks by examining the costs and
damages associated with serious large truck crashes. PIRE concluded
that the current minimum levels are an order of magnitude too low. The
report found that the estimated upper decile/quartile range for
liability awards in large truck crashes involving death or catastrophic
injury is $9-10 million (in 2012 dollars). The report recommended that
DOT set a minimum of at least $10 million per crash and index for
inflation and productivity growth in the same manner that DOT indexes
its value of a statistical life for regulatory purposes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, ``Potential
Damages in Heavy Truck Crashes,'' March 2013.
\13\ The DOT applies the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual
estimates of inflation and productivity growth rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trucking Alliance reviewed crash settlement data that it
compiled from its membership. Its March 2013 analysis showed that the
current $750,000 of insurance required of many motor carriers is
inadequate to cover the costs of many crashes. Member companies of the
Trucking Alliance voluntarily tracked 8,692 accident settlements
between 2005 and 2011. The data shows that 42 percent of the trucking
companies' monetary exposure from these settlements would have exceeded
their insurance coverage had all companies in the study maintained the
minimum $750,000 insurance requirement. According to the Trucking
Alliance, 42 percent of the injury claims could have had no avenue for
offsetting all medical costs. The Trucking Alliance favors increasing
the Federal minimum requirements for trucking companies. By contrast,
in its 1983 comments to the DOT rulemaking, the American Insurance
Association asserted that less than one one-hundredth of one percent
(.01%) of all commercial vehicle accidents result in damages in excess
of $500,000.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 48 FR 5268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ATA also conducted a review \15\ of the appropriateness of the
current minimum insurance requirements with data from the Insurance
Services Office (ISO), an insurance advisory company. The ATA's
analysis is based on ISO data, obtained under nondisclosure agreements,
from two of the 10 largest trucking insurers. The data covered all the
large truck (over 26,000 pounds) policies of these two insurers.
According to the ATA, ISO's data show that only 6.5 percent of
insurance policies for trucks over 26,000 pounds are written at limits
under $1 million (not taking into account umbrella or excess coverage),
while 83 percent are written at $1 million, and the remaining 10.5
percent are written over $1 million. In its analysis of the ISO data,
ATA found that there is a 1.40 percent chance of a claim exceeding
$500,000, a 0.73 percent chance of a claim exceeding $1 million, and a
0.31 percent chance of a claim exceeding $2 million. From 2006 to 2011,
there were 85,632 reported crashes in this data set with a total of
$961,591,721 in claims incurred, making the average cost per occurrence
$11,229. FMCSA seeks comments on the data and material presented in
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ http://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/What%20We%20Do/Trucking%20Issues/Documents/Insurance%20Study%20Group%20Findings.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70842]]
Broker/Freight Forwarder Financial Responsibility, Trip Insurance, Bus
Brokers and Self-Insurance
FMCSA seeks comments on four issues besides the minimum levels of
financial responsibility for motor carriers.
First, pursuant to Section 32918 of MAP-21, Congress directed FMCSA
to undertake a rulemaking to implement certain broker and freight
forwarder financial responsibility requirements. On October 1, 2013,
FMCSA raised the financial responsibility requirements for brokers to
$75,000, the minimum allowed under statute, and extended that financial
responsibility requirement to freight forwarders for the first
time.\16\ Questions 18 and 19 below continue the statutory
implementation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 78 FR 60226; see also 49 U.S.C. 13906(b), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, pursuant to 49 CFR 387.7(b)(3), Mexican motor carriers,
operating solely in commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border, can
meet their financial responsibility requirements by having so-called
``trip insurance,'' which allows them to obtain insurance coverage in
at least 24 hour increments. However, FMCSA has faced challenges in
verifying in a timely manner the validity of coverage, and Questions 23
and 24 below address that concern.
Third, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13904(f), FMCSA can impose bond or
insurance requirements on ``brokers for motor carriers of passengers''
that the Agency ``determines are needed to protect passengers and
carriers dealing with such brokers.'' FMCSA is considering implementing
this statutory authorization and is seeking comment in question 25
below.
Fourth, pursuant to the congressional mandate at 49 U.S.C.
13906(d), FMCSA maintains a self-insurance program for eligible motor
carriers (see 49 CFR 387.309). In considering applications to self-
insure, carriers ``should submit evidence'' that will allow FMCSA to
determine ``[t]he existence of an adequate safety program.'' 49 CFR
387.309(a)(3). Currently, pursuant to that regulation, carriers must
either submit evidence of a ``Satisfactory'' FMCSA safety rating or
certify that they are not rated, if that is the case. Question 26 seeks
comment on whether different or additional evidence of an ``adequate
safety program'' should be required.
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
In May 2014, the Agency tasked its MCSAC with examining the
financial responsibility requirements. The MCSAC will conclude its
deliberations at its October 2014 meeting and submit a report to the
Administrator.
III. Questions
FMCSA is considering a rulemaking to increase the minimum levels of
financial responsibility for motor carriers, including liability
coverage for bodily injury or property damage in the case of general
freight, hazardous materials, and passenger motor carriers. As noted
above, the Agency is also considering a rulemaking pertaining to broker
and freight forwarder financial security, trip insurance, bus brokers
and self-insurance. FMCSA requests responses to the following issues
and questions. Whenever possible, commenters should provide data in
support of their responses. FMCSA recognizes that an individual
commenter may choose to respond to all of the issues or only a subset,
based on his or her interest or area of expertise.
Premium Rates
1. What are the current insurance premium rates (baseline) for each
category of carriers (property, hazardous materials, and passenger)
covered under the current financial responsibility regulations? To what
extent do the premiums vary based on carriers' safety performance
information from FMCSA?
2. For each 10% increase in insurance requirements, how much would
the premium rates increase? How much additional capital would insurers
have to raise to cover the new exposure associated with each 10%
increase?
3. What percentage of fleets, based on size and the type of
operation of the carrier (passenger, property, hazmat), already have
liability coverage that exceed the minimum financial responsibility
requirement and by how much? What are the premiums for the policies
that exceed the Federal minimums?
4. How are insurance premium rates determined? Is it by driver? Is
it by credit or safety history? Is there a discount for a certain
number of vehicles in a fleet? Is there a discount for bundling? Are
there any other unique methods of determining rates? In the event of a
crash, are carriers responsible for paying a deductible? If so, what
are the most common deductible amounts? What are some of the major
thresholds that result in changes in premium costs?
Current Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility
5. How often is the minimum level of financial responsibility
insufficient to meet the actual costs associated with a crash,
specifically for lifelong medical support? How often are carriers
liable for crash costs in excess of the financial responsibility
requirements unable to pay damages? How often do carriers go bankrupt
following a crash with damages in excess of the minimum requirements?
How often do carriers attempt to reincarnate in order to avoid paying
damages? How would increasing the insurance requirements change the
behavior of such carriers?
6. How often is the minimum level of financial responsibility
exceeded by damages caused by the unintentional release of hazardous
materials from a carrier required to have $5 million in coverage?
Impacts of Increasing the Minimum Level of Financial Responsibility
7. Would an increase in financial responsibility requirements
affect small and large motor carriers differently? If so, how?
8. How would increasing the minimum financial responsibility
requirements affect the ability of a carrier to obtain insurance?
9. How would increasing minimum levels of financial responsibility
affect safety, e.g., would carriers put off ``optional costs'' such as
safety programs, preventive maintenance and investments in new
technology, to cover the high cost of premiums? Would higher minimum
levels drive unsafe carriers out of business? Is there any evidence
that CMV carriers take more risks because they know they are insured?
How could these effects be measured?
10. What are the current State insurance requirements and how do
they vary from the Federal requirements?
11. How many carriers currently participate in Risk Retention
Groups (RRG)? If FMCSA raised the minimum level of financial
responsibility requirements, how would that affect RRGs? What are the
current RRG rates, and how would they change if the minimum level of
financial responsibility is raised?
12. What percentage of insurance-related cases settles before trial
at the current minimum levels of financial responsibility? If the
minimum levels are increased, would the same percentage of cases settle
before trial?
Compensation
13. What minimum levels of financial responsibility are needed to
adequately protect against uncompensated losses associated with
crashes?
[[Page 70843]]
14. What other mechanisms, besides increased minimum levels of
financial responsibility, are available to more fully compensate
persons who suffer catastrophic loss? Should FMCSA consider creating a
compensation fund for such purposes? If so, how would such a fund be
administered? Who would be eligible to receive compensation from the
fund? What claims would be covered? Would a compensation fund create a
disincentive for self-insured or less well insured motor carriers to
make safety improvements? Are there other potential administrators of
such a fund?
15. How would increasing the minimum financial responsibility
requirements affect out-of-court crash damage settlement agreements?
Information Sources
16. As noted in its report to Congress, FMCSA has had difficulty
obtaining information on insurance company underwriting procedures and
motor carrier premiums. The insurance industry understandably regards
such information as trade secrets, and motor carriers are likewise
reluctant to disclose what they pay to competitors or other insurance
companies. What procedures might FMCSA follow to obtain such
underwriting and pricing data?
17. In addition to the information discussed above, what other
sources of information should FMCSA evaluate in connection with
potential changes to minimum required financial responsibility levels?
Timelines
18. If the required amount of financial responsibility is
increased, what is a reasonable phase- in period for insurance
companies and motor carriers to adjust to the new requirements?
19. Should there be a standard process for updating the minimum
levels of financial responsibility (e.g., using core CPI, medical CPI,
etc.)? How often should the update occur, and to what data source
should the minimum be linked (a risk-based or inflation-based measure)?
BMC 84 and 85 Filers
20. What information regarding claims should FMCSA require trust
fund providers (BMC-85 filers) to make publicly available on their Web
sites?
21. If a broker or freight forwarder fails financially, how should
BMC-85 trust providers make public notification?
22. Should the BMC-84 and BMC-85 forms be adjusted to provide
claims handling instructions to the surety or trustee? If so, how?
Trip Insurance, Bus Brokers, and Self-Insurance
23. Does the trip insurance authorized for Mexican commercial zone
carriers in Sec. 387.7(b)(3) provide compensation comparable to the
insurance that FMCSA requires for domestic carriers, and what are
suggested methods for verifying the validity of a carrier's trip
insurance in a timely manner?
24. In regards to trip insurance, as an aid to verification and to
reduce fraud, should policy coverage periods be no less than seven days
as opposed to the current 24 hour minimum?
25. Should bus brokers be required to file evidence of financial
responsibility pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13904(f)? What benefits would
accrue from such a requirement?
26. Should the requirement in 49 CFR 387.309(a)(3) that carriers in
the self-insurance program have ``an adequate safety program'' be
enhanced? If so, how?
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Dated: November 21, 2014.
T.F. Scott Darling III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-28076 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P