Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70839 

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). 

2MAP–21 Enhancements and Other Updates to 

the Unified Registration System. 

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 81⁄2 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3 1 FR 1156 at 1161 (1936). 

4These amounts are codified at 49 U.S.C. 

31139(b), (d). 

5 46 FR 30974, 30983 (June 11, 1981). 

6H.R. Rep. No. 96–1069, at 43 (1980). 

7These amounts are codified at 49 U.S.C. 

31138(b). 

8Section 18 of the Bus Act; see also 48 FR 52679, 

52682 (quoting DOT conclusion that ‘‘the lowest 

levels allowed in the Act are sufficient.’’). 

9Public Law 112–141. 

10http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/

files/docs/Financial-Responsibility-RequirementsReport-Enclosure-FINAL-April%202014.pdf. 

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 

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. 

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

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. 

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 pounds GVWR ............................................................................................... $300,000 

For-Hire Interstate General Freight Carriers ....................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

For-Hire and Private Carriers of Oil and Certain Other Types of Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

For-Hire and Private Carriers of Other Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70841 

11http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-andanalysis/research/study-financial-responsibilityrequirements-commercial-motor-vehicles. 

12Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 

‘‘Potential Damages in Heavy Truck Crashes,’’ 

March 2013. 

13The DOT applies the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 

annual estimates of inflation and productivity 

growth rates. 

14 48 FR 5268. 

15http://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/

What%20We%20Do/Trucking%20Issues/

Documents/

Insurance%20Study%20Group%20Findings.pdf. 

minimums are inadequate to cover the 

costs of some crashes. 

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: 

• Higher compensation for crash 

victims, 

• transferring more of the costs of 

crashes back to motor carriers, 

• reductions in truck- and businvolved 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: 

D 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). 

D 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. 

D 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. 

D 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. 

D 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

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

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16 78 FR 60226; see also 49 U.S.C. 13906(b), (c). 

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. 

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 insurancerelated 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? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 inflationbased 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 SelfInsurance 

23. Does the trip insurance authorized 

for Mexican commercial zone carriers in 

§ 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 selfinsurance 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS