Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27485 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622(i) [Amended] 

2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Texas, is amended by adding 

DTV channel *9 and removing DTV 

channel *8 at Amarillo. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis, 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–13649 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 387 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2006–26262] 

RIN 2126–AB05 

Minimum Levels of Financial 

Responsibility for Motor Carriers 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

proposes amendments to its regulations 

concerning minimum levels of financial 

responsibility for motor carriers to allow 

Canada-domiciled carriers to maintain, 

as acceptable evidence of financial 

responsibility, insurance policies issued 

by Canadian insurance companies 

legally authorized to issue such policies 

in the Canadian Province or Territory 

where the motor carrier has its principal 

place of business. Currently, Canadadomiciled motor carriers operating in 

the U.S. must maintain as evidence of 

financial responsibility, insurance 

policies issued by U.S. insurance 

companies. The proposed change would 

not affect the required minimum levels 

of financial responsibility that carriers 

must now maintain under the 

regulations. This action is in response to 

a petition for rulemaking filed by the 

Government of Canada. 

DATES: Public comments are requested 

on all aspects of this proposed rule by 

August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket No. FMCSA–2006– 

26262 and/or RIN 2126–AB05, by any of 

the following methods—Internet, 

facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The FDMS is the 

preferred method for submitting 

comments, and we urge you to use it. In 

the Comment or Submission section, 

type Docket ID Number ‘‘FMCSA–2006– 

26262’’, select ‘‘Go’’, and then click on 

‘‘Send a Comment or Submission.’’ You 

will receive a tracking number when 

you submit a comment. 

• Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations (M–30), West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. Office hours are between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Docket: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

background information and documents 

mentioned in this preamble, are part of 

docket FMCSA–2006–26262, and are 

available for inspection and copying on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may also 

view and copy documents at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s, Docket 

Operations Unit, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave SE., Washington, DC. 

Privacy Act: All comments will be 

posted without change including any 

personal information provided to the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Anyone can search the electronic form 

of all our dockets in FDMS, by the name 

of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). The DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can 

be viewed at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver 

and Carrier Operations. Telephone (202) 

366–4325 or e-mail MCPSD@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 

1980 (1980 Act) (Pub. L. 96–296, 94 

Stat. 793, 820, July 1, 1980) authorized 

the Secretary of Transportation 

(Secretary) to prescribe regulations 

establishing minimum levels of 

financial responsibility covering public 

liability, property damage, and 

environmental restoration for the 

transportation of property for 

compensation by motor vehicles in 

interstate or foreign commerce. Section 

30(c) of the 1980 Act provided that 

motor carrier financial responsibility 

may be established by evidence of one 

or a combination of the following if 

acceptable to the Secretary: (1) 

Insurance; (2) a guarantee; (3) a surety 

bond issued by a bonding company 

authorized to do business in the United 

States; and (4) qualification as a selfinsurer (49 U.S.C. 31139(f)(1)). Section 

30(c) required the Secretary to establish, 

by regulation, methods and procedures 

to assure compliance with these 

requirements. 

In June 1981, the Secretary issued 

regulations implementing section 30, 

which are codified at 49 CFR part 387, 

subpart A. The Form MCS–90 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
27486 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

endorsement for motor carriers 

transporting property is entitled 

‘‘Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies 

of Insurance for Public Liability Under 

Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier 

Act of 1980.’’ (See 49 CFR 387.15.) 

Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory 

Reform Act of 1982 (Bus Act) (Pub. L. 

97–261, 96 Stat. 1102, 1120, September 

20, 1982) directed the Secretary to 

prescribe regulations establishing 

minimum levels of financial 

responsibility covering public liability 

and property damage for the 

transportation of passengers for 

compensation by motor vehicle in 

interstate or foreign commerce. Section 

18(d) of the Bus Act provided that such 

motor carrier financial responsibility 

may be established by evidence of one 

or a combination of the following if 

acceptable to the Secretary: (1) 

Insurance, including high self-retention; 

(2) a guarantee; and (3) a surety bond 

issued by a bonding company 

authorized to do business in the United 

States (49 U.S.C. 31138(c)(1)). Section 

18(d) required the Secretary to establish, 

by regulation, methods and procedures 

to assure compliance with these 

requirements. 

In November 1983, the Secretary 

issued regulations implementing section 

18 of the Bus Act. The regulations 

implementing that law are found at 49 

CFR part 387, subpart B. The Form 

MCS–90B endorsement for for-hire 

motor carriers of passengers is entitled 

‘‘Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies 

of Insurance for Public Liability Under 

Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform 

Act of 1982.’’ (See 49 CFR 387.39.) 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) is based on the Secretary’s 

authority to establish methods and 

procedures to ensure that certain motor 

carriers of property and passengers 

maintain the minimum financial 

responsibility liability coverage 

mandated by 49 U.S.C. 31138(c)(1) and 

31139(f)(1). This authority was 

delegated to FMCSA by the Secretary 

pursuant to 49 CFR 1.73(f). 

Background 

The Government of Canada (Canada) 

Petition for Rulemaking 

On September 29, 2005, Canada 

submitted a petition for rulemaking to 

amend 49 CFR part 387. Canada 

specifically requested that FMCSA 

amend § 387.11, which provides that a 

policy of insurance or surety bond does 

not satisfy FMCSA’s financial 

responsibility requirements unless the 

insurer or surety furnishing the policy 

or bond is— 

(a) Legally authorized to issue such 

policies or bonds in each State in which the 

motor carrier operates; or 

(b) Legally authorized to issue such 

policies or bonds in the State in which the 

motor carrier has its principal place of 

business or domicile, and is willing to 

designate a person upon whom process, 

issued by or under the authority of any court 

having jurisdiction of the subject matter, may 

be served in any proceeding at law or equity 

brought in any State in which the motor 

carrier operates; or 

(c) Legally authorized to issue such 

policies or bonds in any State of the United 

States and eligible as an excess or surplus 

lines insurer in any State in which business 

is written, and is willing to designate a 

person upon whom process, issued by or 

under the authority of any court having 

jurisdiction of the subject matter, may be 

served in any proceeding at law or equity 

brought in any State in which the motor 

carrier operates. 

Canada asked FMCSA to consider 

amending this provision to permit 

insurance companies, licensed either 

provincially or Federally in Canada, to 

write motor vehicle liability insurance 

policies for Canada-domiciled motor 

carriers of property operating in the U.S. 

and to issue the Form MCS–90 

endorsement for public liability to meet 

FMCSA’s financial responsibility 

requirements. Form MCS–90 is the 

endorsement for motor carrier policies 

of insurance for public liability, which 

for-hire motor carriers of property must 

maintain at their principal place of 

business. Motor carriers domiciled in 

Canada and Mexico must also carry a 

copy of the Form MCS–90 on board 

each vehicle operated in the United 

States. 

At present, the combined effects of 

§§ 387.7 and 387.11 require Canadadomiciled motor carriers of property 

operating in the United States to either: 

(1) Obtain insurance through a Canadalicensed insurer, which enters into a 

‘‘fronting agreement’’ with a U.S.- 

licensed insurer, whereby the U.S. 

insurer permits the Canadian insurer to 

sign the Form MCS–90 as its agent, and 

the entire risk is contractually 

‘‘reinsured’’ back to the Canadian 

insurer by the U.S. insurer; or (2) obtain 

two separate insurance policies, one 

valid in Canada written by a Canadian 

insurer and one valid in the United 

States written by a U.S. insurer. Canada 

indicates that the first option is by far 

the most common. It suggests that the 

result of these requirements is an 

additional administrative burden, 

inconvenience, and cost not faced by 

U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating 

into Canada. FMCSA estimates there are 

approximately 9,000 Canada-domiciled 

for-hire motor carriers of property and 

passengers and freight forwarders 

actively operating commercial motor 

vehicles (CMVs) in the United States 

that are subject to the current financial 

responsibility rules. 

Canada requested that FMCSA amend 

49 CFR part 387 so that an insurance 

policy issued by a Canadian insurance 

company satisfies the financial 

responsibility requirements. The 

insurance company must be legally 

authorized to issue such a policy in the 

Province or Territory of Canada in 

which the Canadian motor carrier has 

its principal place of business or 

domicile. The company must also be 

willing to designate a person upon 

whom process, issued by or under the 

authority of any court having 

jurisdiction of the subject matter, may 

be served in any proceeding at law or 

equity brought in any State in which the 

motor carrier operates. 

Canada’s proposal, if adopted through 

this rulemaking, would eliminate the 

need for Canadian insurance companies 

to link with a U.S. insurance company 

to legally insure Canadian motor 

carriers of property that operate in the 

United States. It should be noted that 

although Canada’s petition only seeks to 

amend 49 CFR 387.11, its proposal 

necessarily implicates other sections of 

part 387, which would need to be 

changed for the sake of consistency. 

Section 387.35 applies the § 387.11 

requirements to motor passenger 

carriers, which must obtain a Form 

MCS–90B endorsement. Furthermore, 

§ 387.315 imposes the same 

requirements on motor carriers who 

must file evidence of insurance with 

FMCSA, and § 387.409 applies similar 

financial responsibility requirements on 

freight forwarders. Therefore, FMCSA 

proposes to amend those sections for 

consistency. 

Canada explained that, for many 

years, it has recognized and accepted 

non-commercial motor vehicle liability 

policies issued in either country as 

acceptable proof of financial 

responsibility. All jurisdictions in 

Canada accept the signing and filing of 

a Power of Attorney and Undertaking 

(PAU) by U.S.-licensed insurers as valid 

proof of financial responsibility for U.S.- 

domiciled motor vehicles of all 

categories. In essence, the PAU provides 

that the U.S. insurer will comply with 

and meet the minimum coverage and 

policy limits required in any Canadian 

jurisdiction in which a crash involving 

its insured occurs. The PAU is similar 

to FMCSA’s requirements under 

§§ 387.11 and 387.15 (MCS–90 Form). 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27487 

The Security and Prosperity Partnership 

of North America 

The Security and Prosperity 

Partnership of North America (SPP) is 

an effort to increase security and 

enhance prosperity among the Untied 

States, Canada, and Mexico through 

greater cooperation and information 

sharing. The President of the United 

States, the Prime Minister of Canada, 

and the President of Mexico (the 

Leaders) announced this initiative on 

March 23, 2005. Among other things, 

the initiative reflects the goal of 

improving the availability and 

affordability of insurance coverage for 

motor carriers engaged in cross-border 

commerce in North America. 

On June 27, 2005, a Report to the 

Leaders was signed on behalf of the 

United States by the Secretaries of 

Homeland Security, Commerce, and 

State. See http://www.spp.gov, and click 

on link to ‘‘2005 Report to Leaders.’’ 

One of the Prosperity Priorities of the 

SPP is to ‘‘Seek ways to improve the 

availability and affordability of 

insurance coverage for carriers engaged 

in cross-border commerce in North 

America.’’ At http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/ 

progress/prosperity_08_06-en.aspx, the 

following key milestone is stated for this 

initiative: 

‘‘U.S. and Canada to work towards possible 

amendment of the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration Regulation to allow 

Canadian insurers to directly sign the MCS– 

90 form concerning endorsement for motor 

carrier policies of insurance for public 

liability: by June 2006.’’ 

Canada advocates a change to part 387 

to assist in meeting the stated goals of 

the SPP. Achieving a seamless motor 

vehicle liability insurance policy 

between Canada and the United States 

for motor carriers would contribute to 

enhancing the competitive and efficient 

position of North American businesses. 

FMCSA recognized the importance of 

considering these requests and granted 

the petition by initiating a rulemaking 

proceeding to solicit public comment on 

Canada’s proposal. 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75433), 

FMCSA published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in 

response to Canada’s petition for 

rulemaking to amend 49 CFR part 387. 

The ANPRM also requested public 

comment on a petition for rulemaking 

from the Property Casualty Insurers of 

America (PCI) which requested that 

FMCSA make revisions to the Forms 

MCS–90 and MCS–90B endorsements to 

clarify that language in the 

endorsements imposing liability for 

negligence ‘‘on any route or in any 

territory authorized to be served by the 

insured or elsewhere’’ does not include 

liability connected with transportation 

within Mexico. 

The PCI petition was the result of a 

Federal District Court decision holding 

that the Form MCS–90B endorsement 

applied to a crash that occurred in 

Mexico. As a result, PCI requested that 

the endorsement be amended by 

inserting the phrase: ‘‘Within the United 

States of America, its territories, 

possessions, Puerto Rico, and Canada’’ 

following the words ‘‘or elsewhere.’’ 

However, in September 2007, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

issued a decision, Lincoln General Ins. 

Co. v. De La Luz Garcia, 501 F.3d 436 

(5th Cir., 2007), effectively overturning 

the District Court decision that had 

prompted PCI to file its petition. 

Because the Court of Appeals decision 

essentially provided PCI with the relief 

requested in its petition, and because 

the issues raised in that petition are 

different from the issues raised in 

Canada’s petition, FMCSA has decided 

that a regulatory change need not be 

considered at this time, and this issue 

will not be addressed further in this 

NPRM. 

Discussion of the Comments Received 

on the ANPRM 

FMCSA received comments on the 

ANPRM from the following parties: The 

American Insurance Association (AIA), 

the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), 

the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), 

the Holland America Line, Inc. (HAL), 

the National Association of Professional 

Surplus Lines Offices, Ltd. (NAPSLO), 

and the Public Utilities Commission of 

Ohio (PUCO). The Canadian 

Government and the Property Casualty 

Insurers of America submitted 

supplemental comments. 

Generally, the commenters agree with 

the amendments requested by Canada. 

For example, AIA believes that ‘‘* * * 

granting [Canada’s] petition is in the 

public interest.’’ HAL believes that 

whatever rules FMCSA adopts the 

Agency should apply the rules to both 

motor carriers of property and motor 

carriers of passengers. 

One commenter opposed the granting 

of the petition. NAPSLO expressed 

concerns that changes to the regulations 

may expose U.S. carriers and motorists 

to ‘‘a potential increase in risk in 

connection with foreign carriers.’’ 

Specific Concerns Raised by 

Commenters 

NAPSLO argues there is already a 

process for Canadian companies to do 

business in the U.S. NAPSLO states: 

The [National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners (NAIC)] has adopted a 

streamlined application process for foreign 

companies in its International Insurance 

Department [(IID)]. Through the application 

process, the Canadian companies would 

become approved surplus lines insurers, and 

thus, meet the existing criteria. By obtaining 

approval from the NAIC’s IID, a Canadian 

carrier would become approved as a surplus 

lines writer in the vast majority of states. The 

reason for this process is to streamline the 

approval process. A Canadian insurer could 

become approved in the vast majority of 

states through a single application process. 

The other states have an established process 

for alien insurance companies desiring to 

operate in their states. Thus, there is a long 

established process for alien companies 

intending to operate in the U.S. 

Although not opposed to the Canada 

petition for rulemaking, PUCO believes 

FMCSA should ensure that policies of 

insurance maintained by foreign motor 

carriers operating in the United States 

are as ‘‘reliable and comprehensive’’ as 

those currently required. PUCO 

emphasizes that the enforceability of the 

rules must be seamless and efficient. 

FMCSA Response: 

FMCSA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns but does not, 

however, believe maintaining the status 

quo is appropriate or necessary to 

ensure financial protection for U.S. 

citizens in the event of a crash involving 

a Canada-domiciled motor carrier. 

Currently, Canada-domiciled carriers 

have two options for satisfying the U.S. 

insurance requirements. The first is to 

obtain two separate insurance policies, 

one with a Canadian insurance 

company for its operations in Canada 

and the other with a U.S. insurance 

company for its operations in the U.S. 

The second option is to obtain 

insurance from a Canadian insurer 

under contract with a U.S. insurer 

through a fronting arrangement. Both 

options result in the imposition of costs 

on Canada-based motor carriers that are 

significantly greater than the costs for 

U.S.-based carriers operating in Canada. 

FMCSA estimates that this rulemaking 

would result in discounted net benefits 

of approximately $273 million over a 

10-year period, or $30,000 for each 

Canada-based motor carrier that 

conducts operations in the U.S. during 

this period. As noted above, there are 

approximately 9,000 such carriers. 

While the approach that NAPSLO 

supports may provide a solution, it 

would require each Canadian insurance 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
27488 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

company to essentially seek authority 

from State insurance commissioners to 

issue policies in the U.S. Based on the 

information provided by NAPSLO it is 

not clear that this approach would 

necessarily provide the needed coverage 

for Canada-domiciled carriers in each 

State in which the insured Canadian 

carrier intends to operate in the U.S. if 

the NAIC’s IID is not recognized in 

certain States. 

FMCSA believes the proposed 

rulemaking is needed to provide 

reciprocity between the U.S. and 

Canada and that it is inappropriate to 

impose on Canada-based carriers and 

insurance companies requirements that 

Canada does not impose on U.S.-based 

motor carriers and insurance 

companies. 

Under the current fronting 

arrangements between U.S. and 

Canadian insurance companies, 

Canadian insurance companies are 

under contract to pay claims against 

public liability policies that include the 

Form MCS–90/MCS–90B endorsement 

executed by a U.S. insurance company. 

The fact that the fronting arrangements 

exist is an indication that there are 

sufficient legal processes in place to 

assure U.S. insurance companies that 

their Canadian counterparts could be 

forced to honor their contractual 

obligations in the event that the 

Canadian insurance company attempted 

to avoid paying a claim for a crash that 

occurred in the U.S. The continued use 

of these fronting arrangements over the 

years also suggests that Canadian 

insurers typically honor their 

contractual obligations without the need 

for legal actions—it is unlikely that U.S. 

insurance companies would continue to 

sign such arrangements if the Canadian 

insurance companies they were dealing 

with exhibited a reluctance to honor 

their commitments. Therefore, FMCSA 

believes the experience U.S. insurance 

companies have had with Canadian 

insurance companies through fronting 

arrangements serves as proof Canadian 

insurers have the financial ability and 

the corporate values to honor their 

commitments without the need for legal 

action. The only apparent need for the 

current fronting arrangements is to 

fulfill FMCSA’s insurance requirements, 

not because of problems obtaining 

payments from Canadian insurance 

companies. 

With regard to PUCO’s comments, 

FMCSA believes that the regulatory 

change sought by Canada would not 

compromise the financial protection 

provided under the current insurance 

regime. The legal processes between the 

U.S. and Canada that support the 

fronting arrangements, combined with 

the demonstrated willingness of 

Canadian insurance companies to honor 

their financial obligations, suggests 

there will continue to be financial 

protection for U.S. citizens who file 

claims following a crash involving a 

commercial motor vehicle operated by a 

Canada-domiciled motor carrier insured 

by a Canadian insurance company. 

Discussion of Response to Specific 

Questions Included in the ANPRM 

FMCSA specifically requested that 

comments provide responses to 

questions and issues raised in the 

ANPRM. The questions and the 

responsive comments are set out below. 

Question 1: 

• What has been the experience in 

collecting damage claims filed with Canadian 

insurance companies for incidents that occur 

in the United States, particularly as it relates 

to motorists or other claimants for crashes 

involving passenger cars driven in the United 

States but insured by Canadian firms? 

Comments (IBC and Canada): Canada 

and IBC indicated that U.S. citizens and 

businesses that file claims against the 

drivers of passenger cars insured by 

Canadian insurers receive the same 

quality of claims service and settlement 

as from U.S. insurance companies. Both 

stated that they were not aware of any 

cases where legitimate damage claims 

involving passenger cars driven in the 

U.S. and insured by Canadian insurance 

companies were not paid to U.S. 

citizens or businesses. 

FMCSA Response: 

The comments suggest that claims 

involving Canada-domiciled carriers 

would be honored by Canadian insurers. 

Although the commenters discuss 

current experiences involving passenger 

cars operating under a substantially 

lower threshold of financial 

responsibility than motor carriers are 

required to maintain, the full 

cooperation of Canadian insurers in 

these matters is a good indicator that the 

insurers would provide comparable 

levels of cooperation in the event claims 

are filed by U.S. citizens. 

In addition, the on-going practice of 

fronting arrangements between U.S. 

insurers and Canadian insurers provides 

a strong indicator that Canadian 

insurance companies are fully capable 

of providing the required levels of 

financial responsibility for Canadadomiciled motor carriers operating in 

the U.S. It is unlikely that U.S. insurers 

would take financial risks of entering 

into a fronting agreement with Canadian 

insurers without some assurances that 

the Canadian insurance companies are 

willing and able to pay claims. 

Question 2: 

• How does Canada’s consumer protection 

system ensure that claims filed by U.S. 

citizens and businesses receive proper 

consideration? 

Comments (IBC): The IBC stated that 

legal and regulatory insurance systems 

in Canada require that a Canadian 

insurance company that issues an 

automobile insurance policy respond to 

a claim arising from an incident in 

Canada or in the U.S. The Canadian 

provincial and territorial 

Superintendents of Insurance are 

responsible under their respective 

insurance laws for the market conduct 

of all insurers licensed in their 

jurisdictions. Market conduct includes 

the fair and prompt settlement of 

claims. 

FMCSA Response: 

FMCSA agrees with IBC that Canada’s 

requirements for automobile insurance 

provide protection for U.S. citizens in 

the event of an automobile crash. Based 

on the information available to FMCSA 

and included in the docket referenced at 

the beginning of this notice, there is no 

indication that Canadian insurance 

companies would be non-responsive to 

claims filed by U.S. citizens or 

businesses against Canadian-domiciled 

carriers. As indicated above, Canadian 

insurance companies currently honor 

their commitments under their fronting 

agreements with U.S. insurance 

companies and there is no reason to 

conclude that these companies would 

be less likely to honor claims filed 

directly with them. 

FMCSA is engaged in an on-going 

process with its Canadian counterparts 

to identify opportunities for establishing 

reciprocity arrangements, whenever 

practicable, concerning certain motor 

carrier requirements. Based upon the 

information currently available and the 

comments to the ANPRM, the Agency 

has preliminarily determined that the 

Canadian processes for providing 

consumer protection in the event of a 

crash between a commercial vehicle and 

a passenger car are comparable to what 

is provided in the U.S. We believe U.S. 

entities would have their claims 

processed in a timely manner in the 

event they obtain a final judgment 

against a Canadian-insured, Canadadomiciled motor carrier in a U.S. court. 

Question 3: 

• Would it be more difficult to execute a 

U.S. court judgment against a Canadian 

motor carrier insured by a Canadian 

insurance company, as compared to a 

Canadian motor carrier insured by a U.S. 

insurance company? 

Comments (IBC): The IBC believes it 

would not be more difficult because 

Canadian insurers, as a normal business 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27489 

practice, pay U.S. judgments against 

their policyholders. In insuring 

Canadian motor carriers which operate 

in the U.S., Canadian insurance 

companies know the insurance product 

they are selling to these motor carriers 

includes a promise to pay U.S. 

judgments. IBC is not aware of any 

instance where a Canadian-licensed 

insurer has refused or failed to pay a 

judgment against its Canadian policy 

holder to a U.S. citizen, to the full 

extent of its legal obligation. 

FMCSA Response: 

FMCSA agrees with IBC that 

Canadian insurers, as a normal business 

practice, pay U.S. judgments against 

their policy holders. The Agency is not 

aware of any instances in which a U.S. 

insurance company, operating in a 

fronting arrangement with a Canadian 

insurance company, has experienced 

problems with a Canadian partner 

fulfilling its financial obligations to 

satisfy judgments against a Canadadomiciled motor carrier. The extensive 

experience that U.S. insurers have had 

in working with Canadian insurers 

provides significant assurance that in 

the event of a judgment against a 

Canada-domiciled carrier, the Canadian 

insurer will pay, up to the applicable 

limits on the Form MCS–90 or MCS– 

90B, any legitimate claims filed by U.S. 

citizens or businesses. 

Question 4: 

• Under Canadian law, would Canadian 

insurance companies be legally bound to 

make payment to U.S. claimants based on a 

final judgment issued by a U.S. court? 

Comments (IBC): The IBC stated that 

a Canadian insurance company would 

be legally bound to make payments to 

U.S. claimants based on a final 

judgment issued by a U.S. court. It 

points out that legislation pertaining to 

automobile insurance in each of 

Canada’s provinces and territories 

provides that coverage under 

automobile insurance policies is 

provided when the vehicle is in Canada 

or the United States or while being 

transported between those countries. It 

is therefore clear from this wording of 

this legislation that it is intended that 

the liability coverage under a Canadian 

automobile insurance policy will cover 

crashes in the U.S. 

FMCSA Response: 

FMCSA believes that fronting 

arrangements between U.S. and 

Canadian insurance companies would 

not exist unless there were sufficient 

legal processes to ensure that U.S. 

insurance companies could take action 

to receive payment from any Canadian 

company that refused to honor its 

contractual obligations. While the 

specific legal processes to ensure that 

Canadian insurance companies honor 

their contractual obligations may differ 

from the legal processes that would be 

used by a U.S. entity filing a claim 

directly against a Canadian insurance 

policy, the track record of Canadian 

insurance companies does not suggest 

that U.S. entities would need to resort 

to legal actions to have their claims 

honored. Canadian insurance 

companies have been working 

cooperatively with U.S. insurance 

companies for years and there is no 

reason to believe that the Canadian 

companies would adopt new practices 

to avoid paying claims if this 

rulemaking proceeds. 

Question 5: 

• If Canadian insurance companies were 

allowed to write coverage for Canadian motor 

carriers operating in the United States, would 

there likely be economic impacts associated 

with a potential increase in unpaid claims? 

Comments (IBC): The only change 

FMCSA is proposing would be the name 

of the insurance company that signs the 

endorsement for Form MCS–90 or Form 

MCS–90B. There would be no change in 

the payment of claims because there 

would be no change in which insurance 

company has the contractual obligation 

to pay claims. IBC does not foresee an 

increase in unpaid claims, and it does 

not anticipate adverse economic 

impacts on U.S. entities. 

FMCSA Response: 

FMCSA does not believe there would 

be an increased likelihood of unpaid 

claims if Canada-domiciled carriers 

operating in the U.S. are allowed to 

operate under insurance policies issued 

by Canadian companies. The Forms 

MCS–90 and MCS–90B require that the 

insurer pay any final judgment against 

the motor carrier. Therefore, if there is 

a court decision against a Canadadomiciled motor carrier concerning a 

commercial motor vehicle crash, the 

Canadian insurer must pay the claim. 

Canadian insurance companies, through 

fronting arrangements described above, 

are currently fulfilling the financial 

obligations associated with satisfying 

U.S. judgments against Canadadomiciled carriers. There is no reason to 

believe that they would be financially 

unable to, or refuse to fulfill their 

financial obligations if they execute the 

Forms MCS–90 or MCS–90B as the 

insurer rather than as an agent of a U.S. 

insurer. 

Question 6: 

• Although the petition proposes 

amending only § 387.11, is there any reason 

why the rulemaking should not be extended 

to include insurance policies issued to 

Canadian passenger carriers and freight 

forwarders? 

Comments (CTA, HAL, AIA, and IBC): 

Generally, the commenters support 

including Canadian passenger carriers 

and freight forwarders in the proposed 

changes. 

FMCSA Response: 

FMCSA agrees with commenters that 

the rulemaking should not be limited to 

insurance for motor carriers of property. 

Accordingly, this proposal would 

permit Canada-domiciled motor carriers 

of passengers and freight forwarders to 

operate in the U.S. under insurance 

policies issued by Canadian insurance 

companies. 

The Proposed Rule 

FMCSA proposes amendments to 49 

CFR 387.11 to allow Canadian insurance 

companies, licensed in the province or 

territory where the motor carrier has its 

principal place of business, to issue 

proof of financial responsibility for 

Canada-domiciled motor carriers by 

executing the Forms MCS–90 and MCS– 

90B directly rather than as the agent of 

a U.S. insurer. FMCSA also proposes 

amendments to other sections of part 

387 to ensure consistency within part 

387. These include § 387.35, which 

applies the requirements of § 387.11 to 

motor passenger carriers; § 387.315, 

which imposes the same requirements 

on motor carriers that must file evidence 

of insurance with FMCSA; and 49 CFR 

387.409, which applies these 

requirements to freight forwarders. 

In order to implement this proposal, 

FMCSA proposes to revise §§ 387.11 

and 387.35 to add a new paragraph (d), 

that would allow an insurance policy to 

satisfy the financial responsibility 

requirements of the subpart if the 

insurer is: 

• Legally authorized to issue a policy of 

insurance in the Province or Territory of 

Canada in which a motor carrier has its 

principal place of business or domicile, and 

is willing to designate a person upon whom 

process, issued by or under the authority of 

any court having jurisdiction of the subject 

matter, may be served in any proceeding at 

law brought in any State in which the motor 

carrier operates. 

The Agency would also revise 

§ 387.315 to add a new paragraph (d) 

that would allow a certificate of 

insurance to be accepted by FMCSA if 

issued by an insurance company that is 

authorized to issue insurance policies: 

• In the Province or Territory of Canada in 

which a motor carrier has its principal place 

of business or domicile, and will designate in 

writing upon request by FMCSA, a person 

upon whom process, issued by or under the 

authority of a court of competent jurisdiction, 

may be served in any proceeding at law 

brought in any State in which the carrier 

operates. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
27490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The Agency would also revise 

§ 387.409 to add a new paragraph (d) 

that would allow a certificate of 

insurance to be accepted by FMCSA if 

issued by an insurance company that is 

authorized to issue insurance policies: 

(d) In the Province or Territory of Canada 

in which a freight forwarder has its principal 

place of business or domicile, and will 

designate in writing upon request by FMCSA, 

a person upon whom process, issued by or 

under the authority of a court of competent 

jurisdiction, may be served in any proceeding 

at law brought in any State in which the 

freight forwarder operates. 

The conforming amendments to part 

387 would enable Canadian insurers to 

execute the Forms MCS–90 and MCS– 

90B endorsements, and allow Canadian 

insurers to file certificates of insurance 

required under part 387, to protect the 

public and to ensure that anyone 

injured or killed by a Canada-domiciled 

motor carrier is compensated after a 

claim is filed. In the event that the 

matter requires court action to 

determine fault in the crash, the 

payment would typically be made after 

a settlement agreement is reached, or a 

U.S. claimant receives a final judgment 

issued by a U.S. court against the 

Canada-domiciled motor carrier. Filing 

of the FMCSA insurance forms and 

endorsements by Canadian insurers 

would subject Canada-domiciled motor 

carriers to all applicable Federal laws 

and regulations that require minimum 

levels of financial responsibility to 

cover public liability and property 

damage for the transportation by 

commercial motor vehicle in the U.S. 

Methods and Databases (Technologies) 

for Ensuring the Validity of Canadian 

Insurers 

Before an insurance company can 

submit certificates of insurance or other 

evidence of financial security to the 

FMCSA, it must first be assigned a filer 

account number. The account number is 

also used to bill a service fee to the 

insurance companies ($10 fee for each 

filing). 

For example, procedures for assigning 

a Canadian insurance company an 

account filer number would include the 

following: 

• The Canadian insurance company 

must submit a request to FMCSA in 

writing to open a filer account. The 

letter must include the home office 

address of the insurance company. 

FMCSA will also need a billing address 

if the address is different from the home 

office address, the name of a contact 

person within that insurance company, 

their telephone number, e-mail address 

and fax number. 

• The Canadian insurance company 

must provide a copy of its license to 

write insurance policies. 

• FMCSA staff will verify with the 

Canadian Government point of contact 

whether the Canadian insurance 

company is licensed or admitted in 

Canada to write insurance policies for 

Canadian motor carriers. 

After all the above information is 

received, FMCSA will then assign the 

Canadian insurance company a filer 

account number. 

If the proposed rule is implemented, 

Canadian insurers would sign the Forms 

MCS–90 and MCS–90B, including any 

other form or documentation required 

under part 387 to be filed on behalf of 

motor carriers, thereby satisfying the 

minimum public liability requirements 

of FMCSA. Canada’s Department of 

Finance has indicated that Canadian 

insurers are all monitored for financial 

solvency by Provincial or Federal 

insurance regulators, and the regulator 

can provide FMCSA with a short 

statement confirming that the Canadian 

insurer seeking to sign the MCS–90 

form, or any other security authorized 

by part 387, is supervised for financial 

solvency. A Canadian agency would: (a) 

Respond to verification requests on 

demand when an insurer new to 

FMCSA seeks to sign the MCS–90 form 

and all other MCS and BMC insurance 

forms required by part 387; (b) on an 

annual basis, verify a list of Canadian 

insurers that have signed the MCS–90 

form and all other MCS and BMC forms 

required by part 387 to ensure that the 

list is still accurate; and (c) respond to 

re-verification requests on demand if 

there were a specific concern (for 

example, a news article on the financial 

health of a particular company). 

Canadian insurers would also assume 

responsibility for insurance filings on 

behalf of their clients as a result of this 

rulemaking. 

Approaches Considered 

After reviewing the comments 

received in response to the ANPRM, 

FMCSA considered two options: (1) 

Issue a proposed rule to amend part 387 

to allow Canadian insurance companies 

to issue insurance policies for Canadadomiciled carriers and freight 

forwarders, and (2) maintain the status 

quo which would entail withdrawal of 

the ANPRM. The Agency chose the 

option of publishing an NPRM 

amending part 387, including changes 

to §§ 387.11, 387.35, 387.315, and 

387.409 to ensure consistency 

throughout part 387 for the insurance 

requirements for motor carriers of 

property and passengers and freight 

forwarders. Based on the comments 

received, there was no discernible 

adverse impact on U.S. entities that 

would likely result from proceeding 

with an NPRM, as requested by the 

Canadian government in its petition. 

Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

Regulatory Impact Analyses 

In examining the economic impact of 

this rulemaking, FMCSA considered 

two options: (1) The Agency’s proposed 

amendments to 49 CFR Part 387 that 

would permit Canadian insurance 

companies to issue insurance policies 

for Canada-domiciled carriers and 

freight forwarders operating CMVs in 

the U.S., and (2) the Agency’s 

alternative of maintaining the status quo 

which would entail withdrawal of the 

ANPRM. Under the first option, FMCSA 

decided to include within the scope of 

the proposal active Canada-domiciled 

for-hire motor carriers of property and 

passengers and freight forwarders. It is 

assumed that a small proportion of 

Canada-domiciled motor carriers and 

freight forwarders may elect to continue 

with the status quo, at least in the short 

term, and choose not to seek direct 

insurance representation by a Canadian 

insurance company for their U.S. 

operations. Those carriers and freight 

forwarders are assumed to be a 

negligible percentage of the total 

affected entities and are thus not 

considered in the analysis. 

The RIA examines the direct costs of 

implementing the proposed rule in 

terms of administrative costs incurred 

by the FMCSA and in forgone revenue 

by U.S. insurance companies (of which 

there are approximately five) currently 

representing Canadian motor carriers 

and freight forwarders. In addition, the 

RIA examines the functional impact of 

rule compliance under this option from 

the perspectives of the FMCSA’s 

Enforcement and Compliance Division 

and the Canadian motor carriers. 

Under the second option, the same 

population of Canadian motor carriers is 

considered. The RIA examines the 

direct costs of maintaining the status 

quo, which consist mainly of 

compliance costs currently incurred by 

Canadian motor carriers. The RIA 

specifically analyzes the comparative 

cost burden currently being borne by 

Canadian motor carriers versus that 

currently being borne by U.S. motor 

carriers. FMCSA will continue to seek 

information to refine its estimates of the 

cost burden. FMCSA specifically 

requests comments from U.S. insurers 

on these cost issues. Any additional 

information will be included in the 

docket referenced at the beginning of 

this notice. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27491 

1Licensing and Insurance database, at http://lipublic.fmcsa.dot.gov, and the Motor Carrier 

Management Information System (MCMIS) 

database, at http://MCMIS.fmcsa.dot.gov, as of 

February 20, 2009. 

FMCSA notes that cost information 

used in its analyses was obtained from 

the Agency’s data base, Canada Finance, 

the American Insurance Association, the 

Property Casualty Insurers Association 

of America and publicly available 

information. 

The RIA also examines the benefits of 

this rulemaking which are largely the 

relief of a disproportional cost and 

administrative burden and 

inconvenience currently being borne by 

Canada-domiciled motor carriers in 

comparison to their U.S. counterparts. 

Other benefits include the elimination 

of trade barriers (i.e., disproportionate 

cost burden) in accordance with the 

goals of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA), and increased 

cooperation among the U.S. and Canada 

pursuant to the Security and Prosperity 

Partnership (SPP) of North America. 

This analysis is conducted under the 

assumption that there are approximately 

9,000 1 active Canada-domiciled motor 

carriers and freight forwarders 

conducting CMV operations in the U.S. 

The FMCSA Licensing and Insurance 

(L&I) system provides up-to-date 

information about authorized for-hire 

motor carriers who must register with 

FMCSA under 49 U.S.C. §§ 13901 and 

13902. The L&I database was the 

primary database utilized in the analysis 

because it does not include overlapping 

carrier data. Under MCMIS, a motor 

carrier may have multiple carrier 

classifications and thus may be counted 

more than once. The Agency did, 

however, use MCMIS as a source to 

obtain the number of Canada-domiciled 

for-hire carriers exempt from 

registration under 49 U.S.C. 13901 and 

13902 since they are not found in the 

L&I database. 

The RIA finds that the proposed 

rulemaking yields a positive discounted 

net benefit of $273 million estimated 

over a 10-year period. This amounts to 

approximately $30,000 per carrier over 

that period. These quantified net 

benefits accrue to the Canada-domiciled 

for-hire motor carriers and freight 

forwarders which are impacted by this 

rulemaking, of which there are 

approximately 9,000 actively operating 

CMVs in the U.S. The essential impact 

of this rulemaking would be the relief of 

a disproportional cost burden which, in 

turn, is the expected net benefit of 

approximately $273 million over a 10- 

year period. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

For purposes of Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 

26, 1979), FMCSA has made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action within the meaning of that 

Executive Order from an economic 

standpoint or otherwise. While the 

Agency estimates a positive discounted 

net benefit of approximately $273 

million over a 10-year period, the net 

benefits are for Canada-domiciled motor 

carriers. Because the benefits pertain to 

foreign entities, they are not considered 

for the purposes of determining whether 

the rulemaking is significant under 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the 

Agency has determined this action is 

not an economically significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 

because it would not have an annual 

effect on the United States’ economy of 

$100 million. 

FMCSA acknowledges that U.S. 

insurance companies would experience 

a reduction in revenues because they 

would no longer receive payments for 

the fronting arrangements with 

Canadian insurance companies. 

However, the Agency believes that a 

significant portion of the payments they 

received from Canadian insurance 

companies were used to offset the legal 

and administrative costs the U.S. 

companies incurred to participate in the 

fronting arrangement. Although there 

may be some degree of financial loss to 

U.S. companies, the amount of the loss 

is expected to be small, as evidenced by 

the fact that, except for NAPSLO, the 

U.S. insurance industry has not 

expressed opposition to Canada’s 

petition. FMCSA requests comments on 

this issue. 

A full regulatory evaluation has been 

prepared in support of this rulemaking. 

The regulatory evaluation is included in 

the docket referenced at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

FMCSA has considered whether this 

rulemaking action would have a 

significant impact under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness 

Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 104–121), and has 

preliminarily determined this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed action has been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). E.O. 13132 does not 

require a Federalism assessment under 

any circumstances. We have determined 

that this proposed action would not 

affect the States’ ability to discharge 

traditional State government functions. 

International Trade and Investment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (19 

U.S.C. 2531–2533) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing standards 

that create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives such as 

safety are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. In developing rules, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. FMCSA has assessed the 

potential effect of the proposed rule and 

determined that that the expected 

economic impact of this rule is minimal 

and should not affect trade 

opportunities for U.S. firms doing 

business in Canada or for Canadian 

firms doing business in the United 

States. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4; 2 U.S.C. 

1532) requires each agency to assess the 

effects of its regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. Any agency promulgating 

a final rule likely to result in a Federal 

mandate requiring expenditures by a 

State, local, or tribal government, or by 

the private sector of $136.1 million or 

more in any one year, must prepare a 

written statement incorporating various 

assessments, estimates, and descriptions 

that are delineated in the Act. FMCSA 

has preliminarily determined that this 

proposal would not have an impact of 

$136.1 million or more in any one year. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), a Federal 

agency must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

each collection of information it 

conducts, sponsors, or requires through 

regulations. FMCSA has determined this 

action would not have an impact on 

OMB Control Number 2126–0008, 

‘‘Financial Responsibility for Motor 

Carriers of Passengers and Motor 

Carriers of Property,’’ an information 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
27492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

collection burden which is currently 

approved at 4,529 annual burden hours 

per year through March 31, 2010. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Agency analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations Implementing NEPA (40 

CFR parts 1500 to 1508), and FMCSA’s 

NEPA Implementation Order 5610.1 

(issued on March 1, 2004, 69 FR 9680). 

This action is categorically excluded 

(CE) from further environmental 

documentation under Appendix 2.6.v. 

of Order 5610.1, which contain 

categorical exclusions for regulations 

prescribing the minimum levels of 

financial responsibility required to be 

maintained by motor carriers operating 

in interstate, foreign, or intrastate 

commerce. In addition, FMCSA believes 

the proposed action would not involve 

extraordinary circumstances that would 

affect the quality of the environment. 

Thus, the proposed action does not 

require an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement. 

We have also analyzed this proposed 

rule under the Clean Air Act (CAA), as 

amended, section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 

7401 et seq.) and implementing 

regulations promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Approval of this proposed action is 

exempt from the CAA’s general 

conformity requirement since it 

involves policy development and civil 

enforcement activities, such as 

investigations, inspections, 

examinations, and the training of law 

enforcement personnel. See 40 CFR 

93.153(c)(2). It would not result in any 

emissions increase or result in 

emissions that are above the general 

conformity rule’s de minimis emission 

threshold levels, because the action 

merely relates to insurance coverage 

across international borders between the 

U.S. and Canada. 

Environmental Justice 

FMCSA has considered the 

environmental effects of this proposed 

rule in accordance with Executive Order 

12898 and DOT Order 5610.2 on 

addressing Environmental Justice for 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, published April 15, 1997 

(62 FR 18377) and has preliminarily 

determined that there are no 

environmental justice issues associated 

with this proposed rule nor any 

collective environmental impact 

resulting from its promulgation. 

Environmental justice issues would be 

raised if there were ‘‘disproportionate’’ 

and ‘‘high and adverse impact’’ on 

minority or low-income populations. 

None of the regulatory alternatives 

considered in this proposed rulemaking 

would result in high and adverse 

environmental impacts. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The Agency has analyzed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. We do not 

anticipate that this proposed action 

would effect a taking of private property 

or otherwise have implications under 

Executive Order 12630. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing 

Executive Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

FMCSA has analyzed this proposed 

action under Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The Agency has 

preliminarily determined that it is not a 

significant energy action within the 

meaning of section 4(b) of the Executive 

Order and would not likely have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

the Agency would not anticipate that a 

Statement of Energy Effects would be 

required. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

FMCSA has preliminarily determined 

that this proposed rulemaking meets 

applicable standards in sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. 

Privacy Impact Assessment 

FMCSA conducted a privacy impact 

assessment of this proposed rule as 

required by section 522(a)(5) of the 

Transportation, Treasury, Independent 

Agencies, and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 

108–447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 

(December 8, 2004) [set out as a note to 

5 U.S.C. 552a]. The assessment 

considers any impacts of the proposed 

rule on the privacy of information in an 

identifiable form and related matters. 

FMCSA has preliminarily determined 

this proposal contains no privacy 

impacts. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

FMCSA has analyzed this proposal 

under Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks.’’ The Agency has preliminarily 

determined that this proposed 

rulemaking would not cause any 

environmental risk to health or safety 

that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FMCSA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13175, dated 

November 6, 2000, and has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed action would not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes; would not impose 

substantial compliance costs on Indian 

tribal governments; and would not 

preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 

summary impact statement would not 

be required. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 387 

Buses, Freight, Freight forwarders, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Highway safety, Insurance, 

Intergovernmental relations, Motor 

carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of 

household goods, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Surety 

bonds. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

FMCSA proposes to amend title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, 

subchapter B, as set forth below: 

PART 387—MINIMUM LEVELS OF 

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR 

MOTOR CARRIERS 

1. The authority citation for part 387 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13906, 

14701, 31138, and 31139; and 49 CFR 1.73. 

2. In § 387.11: 

a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, 

remove the period at the end of the 

sentence, and add in its place ‘‘; or’’; 

and 

b. Add paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 387.11 State authority and designation of 

agent. 

* * * * * 

(d) A Canadian insurance company 

legally authorized to issue a policy of 

insurance in the Province or Territory of 

Canada in which a Canadian motor 

carrier has its principal place of 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27493 

business or domicile, and that is willing 

to designate a person upon whom 

process, issued by or under the 

authority of any court having 

jurisdiction of the subject matter, may 

be served in any proceeding at law 

brought in any State in which the motor 

carrier operates. 

3. In § 387.35: 

a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, 

remove the period at the end of the 

sentence, and add in its place ‘‘; or’’; 

and 

b. Add paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 387.35 State authority and designation of 

agent. 

* * * * * 

(d) A Canadian insurance company 

legally authorized to issue a policy of 

insurance in the Province or Territory of 

Canada in which a Canadian motor 

carrier has its principal place of 

business or domicile, and that is willing 

to designate a person upon whom 

process, issued by or under the 

authority of any court having 

jurisdiction of the subject matter, may 

be served in any proceeding at law 

brought in any State in which the motor 

carrier operates. 

4. In § 387.315: 

a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, 

remove the period at the end of the 

sentence, and add in its place ‘‘; or’’; 

and 

b. Add paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 387.315 Insurance and surety 

companies. 

* * * * * 

(d) In the Province or Territory of 

Canada in which a Canadian motor 

carrier has its principal place of 

business or domicile, and will designate 

in writing upon request by FMCSA, a 

person upon whom process, issued by 

or under the authority of a court of 

competent jurisdiction, may be served 

in any proceeding at law brought in any 

State in which the carrier operates. 

5. In § 387.409: 

a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, 

remove the period at the end of the 

sentence, and add in its place ‘‘; or’’; 

and 

b. Add paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 387.409 Insurance and surety 

companies. 

* * * * * 

(d) In the Province or Territory of 

Canada in which a Canadian freight 

forwarder has its principal place of 

business or domicile, and will designate 

in writing upon request by FMCSA, a 

person upon whom process, issued by 

or under the authority of a court of 

competent jurisdiction, may be served 

in any proceeding at law brought in any 

State in which the freight forwarder 

operates. 

Issued on: June 4, 2009. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–13581 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 541 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2009–0085] 

Preliminary Theft Data; Motor Vehicle 

Theft Prevention Standard 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Publication of preliminary theft 

data; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on data about passenger 

motor vehicle thefts that occurred in 

calendar year (CY) 2007 including theft 

rates for existing passenger motor 

vehicle lines manufactured in model 

year (MY) 2007. The preliminary theft 

data indicate that the vehicle theft rate 

for CY/MY 2007 vehicles (1.86 thefts 

per thousand vehicles) decreased by 

10.6 percent from the theft rate for CY/ 

MY 2006 vehicles (2.08 thefts per 

thousand vehicles). 

Publication of these data fulfills 

NHTSA’s statutory obligation to 

periodically obtain accurate and timely 

theft data, and publish the information 

for review and comment. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket No. NHTSA–2009– 

0085 by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Ms. Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA 

administers a program for reducing 

motor vehicle theft. The central feature 

of this program is the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 

CFR part 541. The standard specifies 

performance requirements for inscribing 

or affixing vehicle identification 

numbers (VINs) onto certain major 

original equipment and replacement 

parts of high-theft lines of passenger 

motor vehicles. 

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 

33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from 

the most reliable source, accurate and 

timely theft data, and publish the data 

for review and comment. To fulfill the 

§ 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document 

reports the preliminary theft data for CY 

2007 the most recent calendar year for 

which data are available. 

In calculating the 2007 theft rates, 

NHTSA followed the same procedures it 

has used since publication of the 1983/ 

1984 theft rate data (50 FR 46669, 

November 12, 1985). The 2007 theft rate 

for each vehicle line was calculated by 

dividing the number of reported thefts 

of MY 2007 vehicles of that line stolen 

during calendar year 2007 by the total 

number of vehicles in that line 

manufactured for MY 2007, as reported 

to the Environmental Protection Agency 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1