[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70839-70843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28076]



[[Page 70839]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 387

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0211]
RIN 2126-AB74


Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders, 
and Brokers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it is considering a rulemaking that would 
increase the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor 
carriers, including liability coverage for bodily injury or property 
damage; establish financial responsibility requirements for passenger 
carrier brokers; implement financial responsibility requirements for 
brokers and freight forwarders, and revise existing rules concerning 
self-insurance and trip insurance. FMCSA seeks public comments on these 
topics.

DATES: You must submit comments on or before February 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2014-0211 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting 
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean P. Gallagher, Office of Policy, 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-366-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
ANPRM (FMCSA-2014-0211), indicate the specific section of this document 
to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion 
or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or 
by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. 
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an 
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that 
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0211, in the keyword box, and click 
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' 
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. 
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on 
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them 
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may draft a notice of proposed rulemaking based on 
your comments and other information and analysis.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this 
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0211, in the 
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket 
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have 
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background and Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31138 and 31139, FMCSA is authorized to establish 
minimum levels of financial responsibility at or above the minimum 
levels set by Congress. FMCSA's regulations (49 CFR part 387 subparts A 
and B) currently require for-hire property and passenger motor carriers 
and all motor carriers transporting hazardous materials to maintain 
financial responsibility at the statutory minimums set forth in 49 
U.S.C. 31138 and 31139. Part 387, Subpart C, requires for-hire motor 
carriers subject to the Agency's jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. 13501 to 
file evidence of financial responsibility with FMCSA.\1\ FMCSA seeks 
public comment on whether to exercise its discretion to increase the 
minimum levels of financial responsibility, and, if so, to what levels. 
Through a separate rulemaking initiative,\2\ FMCSA intends to propose 
extending those minimum financial responsibility requirements to all 
private motor carriers of property and passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 387.303(b)(1)(i) requires $300,000 in financial 
responsibility as opposed to $750,000 where the entire fleet 
consists of vehicles under 10,001 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 
(GVWR).
    \2\ MAP-21 Enhancements and Other Updates to the Unified 
Registration System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Government has long required motor carriers, brokers, 
and freight forwarders to maintain certain levels of financial 
responsibility, either through insurance, a bond, or other financial 
security, as a means to protect the public in the event of a crash and 
to protect carriers and shippers against dishonest and financially 
unstable brokers. The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 first directed the 
establishment of Federal rules and regulations for interstate motor 
carrier operations that govern ``security for the protection of the 
public.'' Congress provided the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), 
one of FMCSA's predecessor agencies, the authority to issue these 
regulations. Over time, both Congress and the agencies have taken 
numerous actions

[[Page 70840]]

to address the levels of financial responsibility.

Motor Carrier Act of 1935

    The first major legislative directive regarding financial 
responsibility levels for the motor carrier industry was the Motor 
Carrier Act of 1935, Pub. L. 74-255. In section 215, Congress directed 
that ``no [common carrier] certificate or [contract carrier] permit 
shall be issued to a motor carrier or remain in force, unless such 
carrier complies with such reasonable rules and regulations as the 
[Interstate Commerce] Commission shall prescribe governing security for 
the protection of the public.'' The ICC also decided that a person 
seeking authority to operate as a broker must furnish ``a bond or other 
security approved by the Commission, in an amount of not less than 
$5,000, and in such form as will ensure the financial responsibility of 
such broker and the supplying of authorized transportation in 
accordance with the contracts, agreements, or arrangements therefore.'' 
\3\

Motor Carrier Act of 1980
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 1 FR 1156 at 1161 (1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next significant legislation regarding financial responsibility 
was the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA), Pub. L. 96-296, which largely 
deregulated the motor carrier industry. Section 30 of the MCA set 
minimum levels of financial responsibility for property-carrying motor 
carriers. The MCA also gave the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 
the authority to reduce those levels, by regulation, for a ``phase-in 
period'' of up to 2 years, provided the reduced levels would not 
adversely affect public safety and would prevent a serious disruption 
in transportation service.
    The MCA set the minimum financial responsibility level at $750,000 
for the transportation of property, $5 million for the transportation 
of certain hazardous materials, and $1 million for the transportation 
of hazardous materials consisting of ``any material, oil, substance or 
waste'' that is not subject to the $5 million limit.\4\ Pursuant to the 
MCA, DOT opted to phase in implementation of the new minimum financial 
responsibility levels. DOT set those levels at $500,000 for property 
(non-hazardous), $1,000,000 for certain hazardous materials, and 
$500,000 for other hazardous materials not subject to the $1,000,000 
limit.\5\ Pursuant to Section 406(a) of the Surface Transportation 
Assistance Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-424, DOT extended the phase-in 
period through the end of 1984. 49 FR 27288. As of January 1, 1985, DOT 
set the levels at the lowest levels authorized by the MCA, and the 
levels have remained unchanged since.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These amounts are codified at 49 U.S.C. 31139(b), (d).
    \5\ 46 FR 30974, 30983 (June 11, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Setting minimum levels of financial responsibility was intended to 
address two concerns, first, to protect the ability of the public to 
recover damages in the event of crashes and, second, to ease concerns 
that competition in the largely deregulated industry could result in 
cost-cutting at the expense of minimum safety standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982

    The Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (the Bus Act), Pub. L. 97-
261, was signed September 20, 1982. Section 18 established minimum 
levels of financial responsibility covering public liability and 
property damage for the transportation of passengers by for-hire motor 
vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Like the MCA, the Bus Act provided the Secretary with the authority 
to temporarily lower the required financial responsibility amount below 
the statutory minimum for up to a 2-year ``phase-in period,'' provided 
the reduced levels would not adversely affect public safety and would 
prevent a serious disruption in transportation service.
    The Bus Act set minimum financial responsibility levels at $5 
million for carriers operating vehicles with a seating capacity of 16 
or more passengers and $1,500,000 for carriers operating vehicles with 
a seating capacity of 15 or fewer.\7\ In 1983 the Secretary opted to 
phase in the new insurance requirements. The ``phase-in'' levels were 
$2,500,000 for carriers operating vehicles with a seating capacity of 
16 or more passengers and $750,000 for carriers operating vehicles with 
a seating capacity of 15 or fewer. Those levels were in place for 2 
years before being raised to $5 million and $1,500,000, respectively. 
These were the lowest limits the statute authorized DOT to require.\8\ 
The statutory minimums went into effect on November 19, 1985 (48 FR 
52684) and have remained unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These amounts are codified at 49 U.S.C. 31138(b).
    \8\ Section 18 of the Bus Act; see also 48 FR 52679, 52682 
(quoting DOT conclusion that ``the lowest levels allowed in the Act 
are sufficient.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current minimum levels of financial responsibility are 
summarized below in Table 1.

 Table 1--Current Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Bodily
           Injury/Property Damage by Type of Regulated Carrier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Regulated carrier category                  Minimum level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Hire Interstate General Freight Carriers <10,001            $300,000
 pounds GVWR............................................
For-Hire Interstate General Freight Carriers............         750,000
For-Hire and Private Carriers of Oil and Certain Other         1,000,000
 Types of Hazardous Materials...........................
For-Hire and Private Carriers of Other Hazardous               5,000,000
 Materials..............................................
For-Hire Passenger Carriers (Seating Capacity <=15).....       1,500,000
For-Hire Passenger Carriers (Seating Capacity >15)......       5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed MAP-21 \9\ into law. Section 
32104 of MAP-21 directed the Secretary to issue a report on the 
appropriateness of (1) the current minimum financial responsibility 
requirements for the transportation of passengers and property; and (2) 
the current bond and insurance requirements for freight forwarders and 
brokers, including for brokers for motor carriers of passengers. FMCSA 
issued this report in April 2014.\10\ Section 32104 also directed the 
Secretary to determine the appropriateness of these requirements every 
4 years and to issue similar reports to Congress. In its April 2014 
report, FMCSA concluded that the current financial responsibility

[[Page 70841]]

minimums are inadequate to cover the costs of some crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Law 112-141.
    \10\ http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Financial-Responsibility-Requirements-Report-Enclosure-FINAL-April%202014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research on Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility

    FMCSA's report to Congress included findings from a study, 
Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor 
Vehicles,\11\ conducted by DOT's John A. Volpe Transportation Systems 
Center (Volpe), assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of those 
levels in meeting carrier liabilities. The Volpe study examined the 
following in connection with potentially increasing FMCSA's financial 
responsibility requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/study-financial-responsibility-requirements-commercial-motor-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Higher compensation for crash victims,
     transferring more of the costs of crashes back to motor 
carriers,
     reductions in truck- and bus-involved crashes,
     costs imposed on CMV operators and the insurance industry, 
and
     other relevant considerations.

While the study's findings provided preliminary support for increasing 
the current levels of financial responsibility, the Agency is seeking 
additional information. Highlights from the study include:
    [ssquf] Catastrophic motor carrier-related crashes are relatively 
rare. Based on limited available claims data, it was estimated that 
catastrophic crashes, which are defined as crashes resulting in claims 
for injury, death, and/or property damages that exceed the current 
minimum levels of financial responsibility, comprised less than one 
percent of all CMV crashes (about 3,300 of 330,000 total crashes per 
year).
    [ssquf] Costs for severe and critical injury crashes can easily 
exceed $1 million. The analysis reveals that two categories of injury 
crash (severe and critical) yield damages of more than $1 million.
    [ssquf] Insurance premiums have declined in real terms since the 
1980s. The analysis revealed the stability of insurance rates over the 
last three decades. Insurance rates for the same level of coverage 
(e.g., $750,000 or $1 million) have declined slightly on average in 
nominal terms, hovering around $5,000 per power unit (truck or bus). 
Additionally, inflation-adjusted premium rates have also declined over 
the same period.
    [ssquf] Current insurance limits do not adequately cover 
catastrophic crashes, mainly because of increased medical costs. Since 
1985, when the current minimum levels were established, the real value 
of insurance coverage has decreased. Because medical costs have 
increased significantly, insurance coverage at the statutory minimum 
levels does not cover as much of the cost of a catastrophic crash as it 
once did. From 1985 to 2013, the medical consumer price index (CPI) 
increased at a significantly higher rate than the core CPI (4.9 percent 
annually for medical care, compared to 2.8 percent for core). Thus, had 
minimum financial responsibility levels kept pace with core CPI or 
medical CPI, by 2013, these minimum levels would have been higher.
    [ssquf] Comprehensive data on premiums that motor carriers would 
incur to meet higher coverage limits were not readily available. The 
insurance underwriting process is specific to individual motor carriers 
and there are no uniform pricing practices (other than limits that 
might be imposed by State regulations). The insurance industry is 
protective of its pricing data and underwriting processes for 
competitive reasons. Accordingly, available information was largely 
generic and limited. Motor carrier risk managers were also reluctant to 
disclose their insurance premium expenses. The study, therefore, did 
not assess the regulatory cost of potential insurance premium 
increases.
    FMCSA's report to Congress also included research findings from 
other organizations which have studied the appropriateness of the 
current minimum insurance levels, such as the Pacific Institute for 
Research and Evaluation (PIRE), the Alliance for Driver Safety and 
Security, Inc. (Trucking Alliance), and the American Trucking 
Associations (ATA).
    PIRE published a report \12\ that examined the adequacy of the 
current $750,000 minimum for large trucks by examining the costs and 
damages associated with serious large truck crashes. PIRE concluded 
that the current minimum levels are an order of magnitude too low. The 
report found that the estimated upper decile/quartile range for 
liability awards in large truck crashes involving death or catastrophic 
injury is $9-10 million (in 2012 dollars). The report recommended that 
DOT set a minimum of at least $10 million per crash and index for 
inflation and productivity growth in the same manner that DOT indexes 
its value of a statistical life for regulatory purposes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, ``Potential 
Damages in Heavy Truck Crashes,'' March 2013.
    \13\ The DOT applies the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual 
estimates of inflation and productivity growth rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trucking Alliance reviewed crash settlement data that it 
compiled from its membership. Its March 2013 analysis showed that the 
current $750,000 of insurance required of many motor carriers is 
inadequate to cover the costs of many crashes. Member companies of the 
Trucking Alliance voluntarily tracked 8,692 accident settlements 
between 2005 and 2011. The data shows that 42 percent of the trucking 
companies' monetary exposure from these settlements would have exceeded 
their insurance coverage had all companies in the study maintained the 
minimum $750,000 insurance requirement. According to the Trucking 
Alliance, 42 percent of the injury claims could have had no avenue for 
offsetting all medical costs. The Trucking Alliance favors increasing 
the Federal minimum requirements for trucking companies. By contrast, 
in its 1983 comments to the DOT rulemaking, the American Insurance 
Association asserted that less than one one-hundredth of one percent 
(.01%) of all commercial vehicle accidents result in damages in excess 
of $500,000.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 48 FR 5268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ATA also conducted a review \15\ of the appropriateness of the 
current minimum insurance requirements with data from the Insurance 
Services Office (ISO), an insurance advisory company. The ATA's 
analysis is based on ISO data, obtained under nondisclosure agreements, 
from two of the 10 largest trucking insurers. The data covered all the 
large truck (over 26,000 pounds) policies of these two insurers. 
According to the ATA, ISO's data show that only 6.5 percent of 
insurance policies for trucks over 26,000 pounds are written at limits 
under $1 million (not taking into account umbrella or excess coverage), 
while 83 percent are written at $1 million, and the remaining 10.5 
percent are written over $1 million. In its analysis of the ISO data, 
ATA found that there is a 1.40 percent chance of a claim exceeding 
$500,000, a 0.73 percent chance of a claim exceeding $1 million, and a 
0.31 percent chance of a claim exceeding $2 million. From 2006 to 2011, 
there were 85,632 reported crashes in this data set with a total of 
$961,591,721 in claims incurred, making the average cost per occurrence 
$11,229. FMCSA seeks comments on the data and material presented in 
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ http://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/What%20We%20Do/Trucking%20Issues/Documents/Insurance%20Study%20Group%20Findings.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70842]]

Broker/Freight Forwarder Financial Responsibility, Trip Insurance, Bus 
Brokers and Self-Insurance

    FMCSA seeks comments on four issues besides the minimum levels of 
financial responsibility for motor carriers.
    First, pursuant to Section 32918 of MAP-21, Congress directed FMCSA 
to undertake a rulemaking to implement certain broker and freight 
forwarder financial responsibility requirements. On October 1, 2013, 
FMCSA raised the financial responsibility requirements for brokers to 
$75,000, the minimum allowed under statute, and extended that financial 
responsibility requirement to freight forwarders for the first 
time.\16\ Questions 18 and 19 below continue the statutory 
implementation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Second, pursuant to 49 CFR 387.7(b)(3), Mexican motor carriers, 
operating solely in commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border, can 
meet their financial responsibility requirements by having so-called 
``trip insurance,'' which allows them to obtain insurance coverage in 
at least 24 hour increments. However, FMCSA has faced challenges in 
verifying in a timely manner the validity of coverage, and Questions 23 
and 24 below address that concern.
    Third, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13904(f), FMCSA can impose bond or 
insurance requirements on ``brokers for motor carriers of passengers'' 
that the Agency ``determines are needed to protect passengers and 
carriers dealing with such brokers.'' FMCSA is considering implementing 
this statutory authorization and is seeking comment in question 25 
below.
    Fourth, pursuant to the congressional mandate at 49 U.S.C. 
13906(d), FMCSA maintains a self-insurance program for eligible motor 
carriers (see 49 CFR 387.309). In considering applications to self-
insure, carriers ``should submit evidence'' that will allow FMCSA to 
determine ``[t]he existence of an adequate safety program.'' 49 CFR 
387.309(a)(3). Currently, pursuant to that regulation, carriers must 
either submit evidence of a ``Satisfactory'' FMCSA safety rating or 
certify that they are not rated, if that is the case. Question 26 seeks 
comment on whether different or additional evidence of an ``adequate 
safety program'' should be required.

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)

    In May 2014, the Agency tasked its MCSAC with examining the 
financial responsibility requirements. The MCSAC will conclude its 
deliberations at its October 2014 meeting and submit a report to the 
Administrator.

III. Questions

    FMCSA is considering a rulemaking to increase the minimum levels of 
financial responsibility for motor carriers, including liability 
coverage for bodily injury or property damage in the case of general 
freight, hazardous materials, and passenger motor carriers. As noted 
above, the Agency is also considering a rulemaking pertaining to broker 
and freight forwarder financial security, trip insurance, bus brokers 
and self-insurance. FMCSA requests responses to the following issues 
and questions. Whenever possible, commenters should provide data in 
support of their responses. FMCSA recognizes that an individual 
commenter may choose to respond to all of the issues or only a subset, 
based on his or her interest or area of expertise.

Premium Rates

    1. What are the current insurance premium rates (baseline) for each 
category of carriers (property, hazardous materials, and passenger) 
covered under the current financial responsibility regulations? To what 
extent do the premiums vary based on carriers' safety performance 
information from FMCSA?
    2. For each 10% increase in insurance requirements, how much would 
the premium rates increase? How much additional capital would insurers 
have to raise to cover the new exposure associated with each 10% 
increase?
    3. What percentage of fleets, based on size and the type of 
operation of the carrier (passenger, property, hazmat), already have 
liability coverage that exceed the minimum financial responsibility 
requirement and by how much? What are the premiums for the policies 
that exceed the Federal minimums?
    4. How are insurance premium rates determined? Is it by driver? Is 
it by credit or safety history? Is there a discount for a certain 
number of vehicles in a fleet? Is there a discount for bundling? Are 
there any other unique methods of determining rates? In the event of a 
crash, are carriers responsible for paying a deductible? If so, what 
are the most common deductible amounts? What are some of the major 
thresholds that result in changes in premium costs?

Current Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility

    5. How often is the minimum level of financial responsibility 
insufficient to meet the actual costs associated with a crash, 
specifically for lifelong medical support? How often are carriers 
liable for crash costs in excess of the financial responsibility 
requirements unable to pay damages? How often do carriers go bankrupt 
following a crash with damages in excess of the minimum requirements? 
How often do carriers attempt to reincarnate in order to avoid paying 
damages? How would increasing the insurance requirements change the 
behavior of such carriers?
    6. How often is the minimum level of financial responsibility 
exceeded by damages caused by the unintentional release of hazardous 
materials from a carrier required to have $5 million in coverage?

Impacts of Increasing the Minimum Level of Financial Responsibility

    7. Would an increase in financial responsibility requirements 
affect small and large motor carriers differently? If so, how?
    8. How would increasing the minimum financial responsibility 
requirements affect the ability of a carrier to obtain insurance?
    9. How would increasing minimum levels of financial responsibility 
affect safety, e.g., would carriers put off ``optional costs'' such as 
safety programs, preventive maintenance and investments in new 
technology, to cover the high cost of premiums? Would higher minimum 
levels drive unsafe carriers out of business? Is there any evidence 
that CMV carriers take more risks because they know they are insured? 
How could these effects be measured?
    10. What are the current State insurance requirements and how do 
they vary from the Federal requirements?
    11. How many carriers currently participate in Risk Retention 
Groups (RRG)? If FMCSA raised the minimum level of financial 
responsibility requirements, how would that affect RRGs? What are the 
current RRG rates, and how would they change if the minimum level of 
financial responsibility is raised?
    12. What percentage of insurance-related cases settles before trial 
at the current minimum levels of financial responsibility? If the 
minimum levels are increased, would the same percentage of cases settle 
before trial?

Compensation

    13. What minimum levels of financial responsibility are needed to 
adequately protect against uncompensated losses associated with 
crashes?

[[Page 70843]]

    14. What other mechanisms, besides increased minimum levels of 
financial responsibility, are available to more fully compensate 
persons who suffer catastrophic loss? Should FMCSA consider creating a 
compensation fund for such purposes? If so, how would such a fund be 
administered? Who would be eligible to receive compensation from the 
fund? What claims would be covered? Would a compensation fund create a 
disincentive for self-insured or less well insured motor carriers to 
make safety improvements? Are there other potential administrators of 
such a fund?
    15. How would increasing the minimum financial responsibility 
requirements affect out-of-court crash damage settlement agreements?

Information Sources

    16. As noted in its report to Congress, FMCSA has had difficulty 
obtaining information on insurance company underwriting procedures and 
motor carrier premiums. The insurance industry understandably regards 
such information as trade secrets, and motor carriers are likewise 
reluctant to disclose what they pay to competitors or other insurance 
companies. What procedures might FMCSA follow to obtain such 
underwriting and pricing data?
    17. In addition to the information discussed above, what other 
sources of information should FMCSA evaluate in connection with 
potential changes to minimum required financial responsibility levels?

Timelines

    18. If the required amount of financial responsibility is 
increased, what is a reasonable phase- in period for insurance 
companies and motor carriers to adjust to the new requirements?
    19. Should there be a standard process for updating the minimum 
levels of financial responsibility (e.g., using core CPI, medical CPI, 
etc.)? How often should the update occur, and to what data source 
should the minimum be linked (a risk-based or inflation-based measure)?

BMC 84 and 85 Filers

    20. What information regarding claims should FMCSA require trust 
fund providers (BMC-85 filers) to make publicly available on their Web 
sites?
    21. If a broker or freight forwarder fails financially, how should 
BMC-85 trust providers make public notification?
    22. Should the BMC-84 and BMC-85 forms be adjusted to provide 
claims handling instructions to the surety or trustee? If so, how?

Trip Insurance, Bus Brokers, and Self-Insurance

    23. Does the trip insurance authorized for Mexican commercial zone 
carriers in Sec.  387.7(b)(3) provide compensation comparable to the 
insurance that FMCSA requires for domestic carriers, and what are 
suggested methods for verifying the validity of a carrier's trip 
insurance in a timely manner?
    24. In regards to trip insurance, as an aid to verification and to 
reduce fraud, should policy coverage periods be no less than seven days 
as opposed to the current 24 hour minimum?
    25. Should bus brokers be required to file evidence of financial 
responsibility pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13904(f)? What benefits would 
accrue from such a requirement?
    26. Should the requirement in 49 CFR 387.309(a)(3) that carriers in 
the self-insurance program have ``an adequate safety program'' be 
enhanced? If so, how?

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.

    Dated: November 21, 2014.
T.F. Scott Darling III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-28076 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P