Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 1987 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Research and Special ProgramsAdministration

49 CFR Parts 171, 173 and 387[Oocket Nos. HM-199; Notice 87-5 and MC-129; Notice 87-51

Enforcement of Motor CarrierFinancial Responsibility Requirements

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous MaterialsTransportation, Research and SpecialPrograms Administration (RSPA); Officeof Motor Carrier Standards, FederalHighway Administration (FHWA).ACTION: Advance Notice of ProposedRuelmaking (ANPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice solicits commentson the merits of a petition forrulemaking filed with RSPA and FHWAproposing to amend Title 49 of the Codeof Federal Regulations to require eachperson offering a hazardous material fortransportation, by highway, in cargotanks to obtain documentary proof thatthe motor carrier possesses theminimum level of financialresponsibility currently prescribed byregulation (49 CFR Part 387); that suchpersons maintain such proof for acertain period of time; and that suchproof should be produced for reviewupon reasonable request by a member ofthe public. Comments are also sought ona corresponding amendment that wouldrequire such documentation be tenderedby motor carriers to those shippers forwhom they transport hazardousmaterials.DATE: Comments must be submitted onor before August 18, 1987.ADDRESS: All comments should refer tothe docket numbers and notice numbersthat appear at the top of this documentand should be submitted, preferably inquadruplicate, to the Office ofHazardous Materials Tranportation(OHMT), RSPA, Dockets Branch. DHM-62, Room 8426, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20590. The Office ofHazardous Materials Transportation iscompiling the information received inresponse to this notice, and writtencomments should be submitted to thisoffice. Persons wishing to receiveconfirmation of receipt of theircomments should include a self-addressed, stamped post card. Publicdockets may be reviewed between thehours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mondaythrough Friday. Telephone (202) 366-5046.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Joseph S. Nalevanko, Policy

Development and Information SystemsDivision, (2021366-4484, Research andSpecial Programs Administration, 400Seventh Street. SW., Washington, DC20590, or Mr. Neill L. Thomas, Office ofMotor Carrier Standards, (202) 366-4989,or Mr. Thomas P. Holian, Office of theChief Counsel, (202) 366-0834. FederalHighway Administration, 400 SeventhStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20590.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

BackgroundOn February 17, 1986, the National

Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC] filed apetition for rulemaking under theprovisions of 49 CFR 106.31 and 389.31.The petition is published verbatim inthis notice. This ANPRM is issued toobtain comments on the merits of thepetition from interested parties as oneaspect of the Department's decision onwhether to proceed with rulemaking. Inrequesting comments from partiesinterested in participating in this action,RSPA and FHWA have formulated aseries of questions that are designed toassist in determining the potential costsand safety benefits associated with theNTTC petition. These questions followimmediately after the verbatimtranscript of the NTTC petition.Additionally, without prejudice to themerits of the NTTC petition, we callattention to the following paragraphwhich appears in the petition:

Another deficiency in this system is theunavailability of adequate enforcement staffto effectively determine carrier compliance.Under anticipated budgetary constraints, thelevel of enforcement staffing within DOT isunlikely to increase. A major benefit of theproposed amendments would be the creationof a ready mechanism for shippers to verifytheir carriers' compliance, withoutexpenditure of any government resources.

The FHWA has no authority overshippers. Therefore, this ANPRM doesnot propose to expand the authority ofthe FHWA over shippers in the area ofhazardous materials regulation. TheRSPA has authority to promulgateregulations governing the shipment andtransportation of hazardous materials asthey apply to both shippers and carriers.

The petition for rulemaking follows:

Before the Administrator, FederalHighway Administration and theAdministrator, Research and SpecialPrograms Administration, United StatesDepartment of Transportation, a Petitionfor Rulemaking in the Matter ofProposed Amendments to CurrentRegulations Dealing with MandatoryEvidence of Financial Responsibility

Filed by National Tank TruckCarriers, Inc.. 2200 Mill Road,

Alexandria, Virginia 22314, (703) 838-1960, Clifford J. Harvison, ManagingDirector.February 17,1986.

This document is a petition byNational Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.(NTTC) to amend the Federal MotorCarrier Safety Regulations (at 49 CFRParts'387 and 390-397) and theHazardous Materials Regulations (at 49CFR Parts 170-178).,

NTTC is the trade association of thefor-hire tank truck industry and iscomposed of over 200 corporatemembers engaged in the transportationof hazardous and non-hazardousmaterials in intrastate, interstate andinternational commerce throughout the48 Continental United States. As suchour carrier/members are subject to theFederal Motor Carrier SafetyRegulations and the HazardousMaterials Regulations (which, withcertain exceptions, have been adoptedtherein). .

The objective of this petition is toamend Title 49 of the Code of FederalRegulations to require shippers ofhazardous materials in cargo tanks tomaintain documentary evidence ofcarrier compliance with regulatoryrequirements for so-called "mandatoryevidence of financial responsibility", forthose motor carriers they use totransport hazardous materials,Furthermore, we seek a correspondingamendment to the regulations to requirethat such documentation be tendered by.motor carriers to those shippers forwhom they transport hazardousmaterials.

BackgroundBeginning in 1980 (and pursuant to

Congressional passage of the MotorCarrier Act (MC Act)] all motor carrierswere required to, obtain evidence offinancial responsibility in varyingamounts and forms, usually byinsurance and/or bonding. Subsequentto passage of the MC Act, the FederalHighway Administrator promulgatedregulations which require all carriers tohave appropriate evidence of financialresponsibility available for publicinspection at their principal place ofbusiness (see 49 CFR 387.7).Contemporaneously, the InterstateCommerce Commission (ICC) issuedconforming regulations applicable to for-hire carriers of property, prescribing theuse of Form BMC-90 which would bemaintained within the carrier's publicdocket (on file at the ICC).

In taking these actions, the FederalHighway Administrator and the ICCdesigned a two-pronged methodwhereby carriers could document for the

19116

Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 1987 / Proposed Rules

public and appropriate Federal andState enforcement personnel-that theycomplied with Section 30 of the MotorCarrier Act.

The ProblemGiven over 5 years of experience with

this legislative and regulatory structure,it is evident that serious deficiencies inboth compliance and enforcement stillexist, and such deficiencies work tofrustrate the objectives of Congress asstated on page 42 of the House ofRepresentatives Report No. 96-1069, to-wit: ", .. to encourage the carriers toengage in the practices and proceduresthat will enhance the safety of theirequipment so as to afford the bestprotection to the public."

The most serious deficiency in thepresent regulatory scheme is that thehazardous materials shipper-the entitywhich initiates the transportation-isnot required to be included in thecommunications "loop" designed toassure compliance with section 30 of theMC Act. In other words, as theregulations are written today, a shipperwould have to make a special effort todetermine a carrier's compliance withthe mandates of section 30 of the MCAct, by either physically checking thecarriers' ICC file, or by requesting suchinformation from individual carriers.The NTTC proposal (if adopted) wouldeliminate this shortcoming.

Another deficiency in this system isthe unavailability of adequateenforcement staff to effectivelydetermine carrier compliance. Underanticipated budgetary constraints, thelevel of enforcement staffing withinDOT is unlikely to increase. A majorbenefit of the proposed amendmentswould be the creation of a readymechanism for shippers to verify theircarriers' compliance, without theexpenditure of any governmentresources.The Proposed Solution

This petition seeks to close thiscommunications loop and to strengthenthe compliance mechanism by amendingthe regulations to require carriers to giveevidence of financial responsibility tohazardous materials shippers, prior to orat the time of loading. Furthermore. theproposed amendments would requirehazardous materials shippers to keepcopies of evidence of financialresponsibility given to them by theircarriers.

DOT jurisdictionOur proposal would amend both the

Federal Motor Carrier SafetyRegulations (promulgated under thejurisdiction of the Federal Highway

Administrator) and the HazardousMaterials Regulations issued by theAdministrator, Research and SpecialPrograms Administration. Thus, we haveelected the procedure of filing thispetition, jointly.

There can be no reasonable doubtthat the Administrators have sufficientjurisdiction within which to act inaccordance with this petition. Section105 of the Hazardous MaterialsTransportation Act (HMTA) of 1974specifies that the Secretary's regulations".... shall be applicable to any personwho transports, or causes to betransported or shipped, a hazardousmaterial ...... (emphasis supplied)

Additionally, the HMTA Act statesthat, "Such regulations may govern anysafety aspect of the transportation ofhazardous materials which theSecretary deems necessary orappropriate. ."

Therefore, there can be no dispute asto the Secretary's (and, hence, theAdministrations') authority topromulgate more viable regulations inthis area. Also, it is important to notethat nothing in NTTC's proposal wouldimpact ICC regulations or jurisdiction,since the Commission exercises nojurisdiction over the shippingcommunity.Why These Amendments Are Sought

Regardless of the current dislocationsin the insurance market, NTTC suggeststhat significant post-1980 changes in thehazardous materials transportationmarketplace mandate refinement of thecurrent "insurance regulations", in orderto better protect the public and carry outthe intent of Congress. Ample evidenceexists that noncompliance iswidespread. Indeed, the Director of theBureau of Motor Carrier Safety hasstated publicly that 1983 and 1984 fieldaudits of carriers' document thatapproximately 25% of audited carriersdid not have appropriate evidence offinancial responsibility to comply withcurrent regulations.

Three of the more significant post-1980 changes in the motor carrierindustry which prompt this petition are:(1) The expanded entry of new motorcarriers into the field of thetransportation of hazardous materials:(2) the Increased use by shippers ofsocalled "customer pick-up" ofhazardous materials in their ownvehicles; and (3) the increase in thenumber of commodities regulated as"hazardous materials/hazardoussubstances/hazardous wastes" by theDepartment and EPA.

There can be little doubt that thenumber of individuals, corporations,partnership, etc., involved in interstate

trucking has increased substantially.While Dun & Bradstreet estimates thatsome 3,400 carriers have exited thebusiness since 1980, the ICC points outthat (through 1984) some 19,000certificates of public convenience andnecessity have been issued to newentrants. Generally, such new entrantsare small businessmen to whom'economic survival dictates extensivebackhaling with just about any type ofload they can find. It is, therefore, quitereasonable to assume (particularly inview of the BMCS Director's remarksnoted above) that many carrierstransporting hazardous materials (in avariety of packaging) are doing so innoncompliance with current financialresponsibility regulations.

It is impossible to calculate with anydegree of precision the true impact ofpost-1980 entry into motor carriage. Forinstance, ICC decisions dealing withintercorporate hauling, so-called "Toto"transportation, relaxed leasingrequirements, and ICC interpretationswhich have greatly expanded the scopeof Certificates of Public Convenienceand Necessity and Permits for ContractCarriage, tend to validate virtually anyshipper/carrier arrangement as being incompliance with the MC Act.

While no regulatory action is going tocorrect every problem area, theseproposed amendments would create athreshold requirement (passing ofdocumentation from carrier to shipper)which would enhance public protectionand safety, and ease enforcementburdens. This would establish a self-checking mechanism by both partiesinvolved in the transportation.

Yet another significant change in thepost-1980 period is the acceleration ofso-called "customer pick-up". Typical ofsuch a situation is the following:

The XYZ Company sells 6,000 gallonsof a hazardous chemical to a customer.The customer specifies that it will useits own vehicle for transporting theproduct from the XYZ Company to finaldestination. Change of title for theproduct occurs at the loading of thecustomer's vehicle at the XYZCompany's loading point.

Since title was transferred "at thepoint of sale,(") (sic) it is unclearwhether the XYZ Company is bound toperform the duties and accept theresponsibilities of the role of a shipper(e.g., provide placards,. product.classification and description for theshipping papers, inspect the vehicle,etc.). This confusion has led manyhazardous materials producers to ,thinkthey have no regulatory responsibilitiesfor loads that were pickedup by theircustomers. As motor carriers of

19117

Federal Register /'Vol. 52, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 10, 1987 / Proposed Rules

hazardous materials, the customer issubject to the financial responsibilityrequirements under the MC Act.

This scenario is no rare exception tocommon transportation practices. Majorchemical companies have indicated to,NTTC that up to 30 percent of their totaltank truck shipments involve so-called"customer pick-up". The proposedamendments would assure that anyperson offering hazardous materials toany motor carrier would have proof ofthe carrier's compliance with the law,before or at the time of loading.

While transportation lawyers andregulators may differ in theirinterpretations of lawful obligations bythe parties (involved in customer pick-up), the issue of public safety may besomewhat compromised. Theamendments, proposed by NTTC, wouldenhance public safety by requiring thatminimum required evidence of financialresponsibility for hazadous materialstransportation be "in place" either priorto or at the time of loading.

just as there can be no rationalargument against the fact that motorcarrier entry has expanded-so too mustthe same reality be applied to theconsiderable expansion of the list ofcommodities regulated (as hazardousmaterials, hazardous substances andhazardous wastes) by theAdministrators and the Secretary.

Congressional passage of andsubsequent amendments to the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA), and the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Restoration and Clean-up Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)(Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA)) (sic), created newclassifications of measurement oftransportation hazards and has led tomuch uncertainty and confusion in thetransportation marketplace. Forexample, all hazardous substances aredeemed by DOT regulation to behazardous materials, yet not allhazardous materials are hazardoussubstances. The phrase "listed, but notregulated... " is in common usage, butis not commonly understood; andcertain hazardous wastes are specified,while others may or may not fall withinthe "hazardous waste" classification(depending upon concentration, wastestream constituents, and othercharacteristics known only to theproduct shipper).

In light of the many regulatoryanomalies created, NTTC respectfullysuggests that most of the new entrantsinto motor carriage (and many of theestablished carriers) do notknow andwould be hard pressed to determinewhether or not carriage, of certain

products would trigger the appropriatelevels of "evidence of financialresponsibility" necessary forcompliance.

Historically, the Department hasrelied upon the shipper-the entity inthe transportation chain most familiarwith the hazard characteristics of theproduct-to properly classify andpackage the commodity placed incommerce as the first step to regulatorycompliance. Yet, as the BMCS Director'scomments noted above prove, asignificant loophole in the regulatoryscheme exists.

Adoption of the NTTC proposal wouldhelp close this loophole by requiring avery basic change of existingInformation proceeding or at the time ofthe shipment of a hazardous material,hazardous substances or hazardouswaste. All the shipper need do is "cross-check" the hazard class of the shipmentagainst the evidence of financialresponsibility offered by the carrier toassure regulatory compliance.

Again, the regulatory goal of publicprotection would be served by assuringthat properly insured carriers arehandling sensitive products.

Specific Relief SoughtNTTC hereby petitions that the

following sections of Title 49 CFR beamended to read:

At 49 CFR 387.7(e)-.add the italicizedlanguage:

(e) The proof of minimum level offinancial responsibility required by thissection shall be considered publicinformation, and in the case oftransportation in cargo tanks shall beprovided to every person using theservices of the motor carrier. Such proofalso shall be produced for review uponreasonable request by a member of thepublic.

At 49 CFR 171.2(b)-add the italicizedlanguage:

(b) No person may transport ahazardous materials in commerce unlessthat material is handled and transportedin accordance with this subchapter, oran exempiton issued under subchapter Bof this Chapter, Transportation in cargotanks by highway must be conducted inaccordance with minimum levels offinancial responsibility required under49 CFR Part 387.

At 49 CFR 173.22-add new italicizedparagraph (e):

(e) A person offering a hazardousmaterials for transportation by highwayin cargo tanks shall obtain proof thatthe motor corrier possesses the requiredminimum level of financialresponsibility prescribed under 49 CFRPart 397. (sic).

At 49 CFR 177.804-amend the phrase.shall comply with 49 CFR Parts 390

through 397" to read, "shall comply with49 CFR Parts 387 and 390 through397. . ." (amendment italicized).

This petition (if granted) wouldimpose minimal obligations on partieswho "offer" hazardous materials for.transportation by highway, and motorcarriers engaged in such transportation.,We have crafted our proposedamendments to reflect DOT jurisdictionover both shipper and carrier;I Adoption of the Proposal Would notbe Burdensome to any Party Includingthe Government

NTTC is cognizant of the need to crafta regulatory structure that is effective,yet does not unduly burden theresources of either government or theregulated community.

Currently, the Department requiresthat carriers simply maintain "proof offinancial responsibility" for publicInspection. The NTTC proposal does notcall for the creation of any new forms ordocuments.

In some cases, the "proof" may be inthe form of a photocopied insurance (orbonding) binder, while in others it maybe a photocopy of an ICC carrier's FormBMC-90 (already required byregulation). Where the shipper andcarrier have an existing businessarrangement, documentation could befiled by mail and maintained on file.Where the transportation arrangementis of a more immediate or temporarynature, such documentation could easilybe carried on the vehicle and transferredat the point of loading. In short, themeans of providing evidence of financialresponsibility will be a matter betweencarrier and shipper.

This proposal does not intrude intonormal business relationships or deviatefrom standard business practices. Byrequiring what is, in effect, the carrier'sverification of his regulatorycompliance, the NTTC proposal simplyborrows a concept from othergovernmental programs. For instance,the Equal Employment Opportunity-Commission requires persons engaged inbusiness relationships to certifycompliance with statutory requirementsfor non-discriminatory hiring andpromotion practices, use of minority-owned firms for contracts, etc. TheInternal Revenue Service is heavilyreliant on self-certification of wages,fees, etc. paid to contractors and otherindependent businesspersons. TheEnvironmental Protection Agencyrequires gasoline terminal loading pointsto maintain copies of a tank vehicle'smost recent certification of leaktightness test conducted under the so-

19118

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 1987 / Proposed Rules

called "Method 27" test-filed by themotor carrier.

At least two major shipperf of..hazardous materials-Texacoand theMobil Oil Corporation7-already requirecarriers to provide them with exactly thesame information as would berequiredby the NTTC proposal.

The NTTC proposal would not createa paperwork burden. Shippers andcarriers have long demonstrated thatthey have no aversion to generatingpaperwork for their own protection.Such may range from complex.contracts-wherein obligations, termsand conditions and responsibilites areexpressly outlined-to simple andstandard lease forms, bills of lading, etc.Transferring a single piece of paperrepresents little more than minor.inconvenience that is more thanoutweighed by the public benefit- to begained.

Given the fact that NTTC is simplyproposing a mandated exchange ofcopies of existing information to be 'accomplished prior to or during the timeof loading of hazardous materials, westress the fact that this aspect of theregulatory program can be implementedand enforced at no cost to thegovernment. These amendments wouldbe entirely consistent with thePaperwork Reduction Act, because ofthe minimal photocopying obligationimposed on motor carriers, and the totallack of any paperwork burden on theshippers or government.

In conclusion, we respectfully submitthis petition before the Administrator,Federal Highway Administration andthe Administrator, Research and SpecialPrograms Administration. We seekexpeditious publication of this proposalas a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking"and prompt handling under theAdministrators' Rules of Procedure andthe Administrative Procedures (sic) Act.

Respectfully submitted,Clifford I. Harvison,Managing Director.

To assist in the evaluation of themerits of the NTTC petition, RSPA andFHWA invite interested parties tocomment on the petition, in particular,on the following questions.

Questions1. The NTTC petition states that a

.major benefit of the proposedamendments would be the creation of aready mechanism for shippers to verifytheir carriers' compliance, withoutexpenditure of any governmentresources." How would DOT enforcethis proposal, if adopted, againstshippers? Would there be any need forthe government to inspect shippers, for

compliance with such a proposal, ifadopted?What impact will this have forshippers? . . .

2. The NTTCpetition states that 'Inlight of the many regulatory, anomaliescreated, NTTC respectfully suggests ,hatmost of the new entrants into motorcarriage (and many.of the established.carriers) do not know and would behard pressed to determine whether ornot carriage of certain products wouldtrigger the appropriate levels of'evidence of financial responsibility'necessary for compliance." If thissuggestion is true for motor carriers, isthere any reason to believe that it wouldnot also be true for shippers ofhazardouis materials, especially forsmall shipper? Are there any grounds forbelieving that shippers, especially smallshippers, ought to be or are moreknowledgeable conceriing the financialresponsibility obligations of motorcarriers than the motor carriersthemselves?

3. A substantial number of instancesinvolving motor carrier noncompliancewith the minimum financialresponsibility requirements involvesoperating without appropriate levels offinancial responsibility; that is, thesemotor carriers had proof of financialresponsibility (a Form MCS-90endorsement) but, in fact, the level offinancial responsibility carried wasinappropriate or inadequate in terms ofthe motor carrier's activity or activities.Since an appropriate level of financialresponsibility is a function of thehazardous material carried, thecontainment system, and whether themotor carrier operates in intrastate,interstate, or foreign commerce, whatadditional fact-finding mechanism willshippers have to employ in order todetermine that the copy of the FormMCS-90 endorsement furnished to theshipper by the motor carrier doesrepresent an appropriate level offinancial responsibility for the motorcarrier's activity, if the current instancesof motor carriers having inappropriateor inadequate levels of financialresponsibility are to be avoided?

4. Information submitted by the NTTCshows that a large percentage of thenumber of audits of motor carriers ofhazardous materials in cargo tanksinvolves failure to maintain proof offinancial responsibility at the motorcarrier's principal business office. Yet,49 CFR 387.7(d) states, in clear andunambiguous fashion, that "Proof of therequired financial responsibility shall bemaintained at the motor carrier'sprincipal place of business." Wouldrequiring shippers, as proposed by theNTTC, to obtain and maintain a copy ofthe motor carrier's proof of financial

responsibility reduce the.number ofinstances of motor carriers failing tomaintain proofof their-financial.responsibility at the motor carrier's:-principal place of business? What arethe resource implications for federal- andstate inspection efforts if 49-CFR387;7(d) is still to be enforced on motorcarriers and,-if the NTr'C proposal wereadopted, on shippers as well?

5. Where would the shipper berequired to maintain a motor carrier'sproof of financial responsibility, at theprincipal place of business or at eachshipping origin? What files should theproof be maintained in? How long wouldthe shippers be required to keep theproof of financial responsibility for eachmotor carrier used? How often wouldshipper be required to obtain proof offinancial responsibility? If the "shipperand consigror are different, whereshould the evidence of financialresponsibility be on file? How would ashipper be aware or notified if a motorcarrier's financial responsibilitycoverage were canceled?1 6. In light of the fact that motorcarriers who are unable to obtaininsurance in the voluntary insurancemarket may have to obtain coverage inthe residual risk market, and that theremay be less incentive for motor carriersinsured through assigned risk premiumsto maintain good safety records (sincepremium rates in the assigned riskmarket are not affected by a motorcarrier's safety record), what safetybenefit is achieved by the NTTCproposal that shippers be given proof ofa motor carrier's financialresponsibility?

7. The NTTC proposal would, as apractical matter, only affect for-hire"bulk" motor carriers of hazardousmaterials, and customers picking uphazardous materials in bulk in their ownvehicles, A large percentage of "bulk"hazardous materials shipments aremade by private motor carriers. (In onestudy, it was found that 78 percent of theliquid tank truck fleet was operated byprivate motor carriers.) From thestandpoint of regulatory equity andnondiscriminatory competitive impact,is there a mechanism comparable to thatproposed by the NTTC that could beapplied to private bulk motor carriers?Should the requirement be applied to allmotor carriers, transporters ofexplosives, poison A materials, andradioactive materials? What effectwould this proposal have on thetransportation by farmers that transportanhydrous ammonia or other products innurse tanks, or other fertilizerapplication equipment? How would this

19119

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 1987 / Proposed Rules

proposal be implemented in "Turn-Key"operations?

8. Because shippers of hazardousmaterials must decide from what plantor warehouse a shipment should bemade to a customer's plant orwarehouse. and must match shipmentorders with appropriate motor carriers,what administrative and managementInformation transaction costs wouldadoption of the NTTC proposal imposeon shippers, especially where thetransportation arrangement is of a moreimmediate or temporary nature?

9. Please summarize yourunderstanding of the costs whichadoption of the NITC proposal wouldimpose on your firm or industry in termsof the following categories and, ifpossible, provide substantiating data.

• Costs in checking thedocumentation of the financialresponsibility provided by motorcarriers.

* Costs in paper work in providingand maintaining such documentation.

• Costs, including litigation costs,associated with liability claims andcounter-claims that might arise due tothe adoption of the proposal.

* Costs to shippers and motor carriersdue to delays in furnishing or properlychecking the documentation or evidenceprovided by motor carriers to shippers.

* Costs in responding to requests-from members of the public to reviewsuch documentation.

* Costs associated with enforcementpenalties due to inadvertently being innoncompliance with the requirements ofthe NTTC proposal, if adopted.

* Costs of rule familiarization(managerial and technical).

10. How would the foregoing costsvary if the proposed requirement wereapplied only to "bulk" motor carriers? Ifapplied to all motor carriers?

11. The American Bus Association haspetitioned the FHWA to require a copyof the proof of financial responsibilitybe carried on each motor vehicle at alltimes. Would adoption of a requirementfor motor carriers to maintain a copy ofthe proof of financial responsibility onall motor vehicles at all times satisfy theconcerns expressed by NTTC in theirpetition for rulemaking? Are there otheralternatives for improving thecompliance record of motor carrierswith the requirements for minimumlevels of financial responsibility?

Commenters are not limited toresponding to the questions raisedabove and may submit any facts andviews consistent with the intent of thisnotice. In addition, commenters areencouraged to provide comments on"major rule" considerations under termsof Executive Order 12291, "significantrule" considerations under DOT

regulatory procedures (44 FR 11034),information collection burdens whichmust be reviewed under the PaperworkReduction Act, and economic impact onsmall entities subject to the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A draft regulatoryevaluation will be prepared as this'rulemaking action progresses, basedupon the comments received in.responseto this notice.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Parts 171 and 173

General requirements, Shipper'sresponsibility, Motor carrier safety.

49 CFR Part 387

Highways and roads, Insurance,Motor carriers, Surety bonds.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Number 20.217)

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10927 note; 49 CFR 1.48and 301.00.49 U.S.C. 1803,1804,1805,1808,1809; 49 CFR 1.53(e), 1.53, App. A to Part 1, 49U.S.C. 105, 1655(c).

Issued In Washington, DC on May 14,1987.

R.A. Barnhart,Administrator, Federal-Highway Administration.

Alan 1. Roberts,Director, Office of Hazardous MaterialsTransportation, Research and Special.Programs Administration.[FR Doc 87-11482 Filed 5-49-87; 8:45 amlDN CODE 4910-6

19120