Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers; Petitions for Rulemaking, 75433-75437 [E6-21314]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
examined the EASA’s findings,
evaluated all pertinent information, and
determined that we need to issue an AD
for airplanes of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United
States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the
actions specified in the service
information described previously.
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section
for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
Costs of Compliance
This proposed AD would affect about
38 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
proposed action would take about 100
work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour.
Required parts would cost about $6,310
per airplane. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the proposed AD for
U.S. operators is $543,780, or $14,310
per airplane.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Dec 14, 2006
Jkt 211001
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
75433
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Related Information
(h) European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) airworthiness directive 2006–0262,
dated August 25, 2006, also addresses the
subject of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 27, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–21354 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2006–26595;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–208–AD.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by January 16, 2007.
49 CFR Part 387
Affected ADs
(b) None.
RIN 2126–AB05
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A320
series airplanes, certificated in any category;
except those on which Airbus Modification
21733 or 21999 has been incorporated in
production.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from rupture of a
carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)
actuator fitting during maintenance. We are
issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a
rudder actuator fitting, which could result in
reduced controllability of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Replacement of Rudder Actuator Fittings
(f) Within 9,000 flight cycles or 12,000
flight hours, or 60 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first:
Replace all of the CFRP actuator fittings of
the rudder with aluminum actuator fittings
and do all the related investigative actions,
by accomplishing all of the actions specified
in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–55–1030,
dated March 6, 2006. Do any applicable
corrective actions before further flight in
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. FMCSA–2006–26262]
Minimum Levels of Financial
Responsibility for Motor Carriers;
Petitions for Rulemaking
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM); request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces it is considering whether to
amend its financial responsibility
requirements for motor carriers in
response to two petitions for
rulemaking. The Government of Canada
(Canada) petitioned FMCSA to amend
these requirements to permit, as
acceptable evidence of financial
responsibility, a policy of insurance
issued by a Canadian insurance
company legally authorized to issue
such policies in the Province or
Territory of Canada where the motor
carrier has its principal place of
business. Canada believes the FMCSA’s
current regulations place Canadadomiciled motor carriers operating in
the United States at a competitive
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
75434
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
disadvantage with U.S.-domiciled
carriers. The Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America (PCI) petitioned
FMCSA to make revisions to the MCS–
90 and MCS–90B endorsements to
clarify that language in the
endorsements imposing liability for
negligence occurring ‘‘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. FMCSA
seeks input from the public in the form
of data or other information in response
to several questions posed in the
ANPRM to assist the Agency in
evaluating these proposals.
DATES: Comments must be received by
February 13, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
(FMCSA–2006–26262) by any of the
following methods:
• Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• FAX: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this regulatory action.
Internet users may access comments
received by DOT at: https://dms.dot.gov.
Note that comments received will be
posted without change to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information provided. Refer to the
Privacy Act heading for further
information. If addressing a specific
section or question in this ANPRM,
please clearly identify the section
heading or question number for each
topic addressed in your comments.
Docket: Copies or abstracts of all
documents referenced in this notice are
in the docket for this rulemaking:
FMCSA–2006–26262. For access to the
docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 14, 2006
Jkt 211001
Mr.
Thomas Yager, Chief, Division of Driver
and Carrier Operations (MC–PSD),
FMCSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202)
366–4009, or FAX 202–366–8842.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Secretary’s authority to establish
methods and procedures to assure that
for-hire motor carriers of property and
passengers maintain acceptable
evidence of financial responsibility in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31138(c)(1)
and 31139(f)(1). This authority has been
delegated to FMCSA by the Secretary
pursuant to 49 CFR 1.73(f).
Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
Background
Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96–296, 94 Stat. 793, July
1, 1980) directed 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 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.
Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory
Reform Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97–261, 96
Stat. 1121 (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 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, 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, which are
codified at 49 CFR Part 387, subpart B.
This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) is based on the
The Canada Petition
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Government of Canada (Canada)
submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to
amend 49 CFR part 387 on September
29, 2005. 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, to issue the Form MCS–90
endorsements on insurance policies 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 Canada-
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
domiciled motor carriers operating in
the United States to either: (1) Obtain
insurance through a Canada-licensed
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. Canada
suggested 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.
Approximately 17,000 Canadian motor
carriers with 184,000 power units
operate in the United States.
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.
If accepted, the amendment would
eliminate the need for Canadian
insurance companies to link with a U.S.
insurance company to legally insure
Canadian motor carriers 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 have
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
these requirements to freight forwarders.
The Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America (SPP)
reinforces the resolution of cross-border
motor carrier insurance issues. The
President of the United States, the Prime
Minister of Canada, and the President of
Mexico announced this initiative on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 14, 2006
Jkt 211001
March 23, 2005. The initiative reflects
the goal of improving the availability
and affordability of insurance coverage
for motor carriers engaged in crossborder 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. One of
the stated initiatives in the report is to
‘‘Seek ways to improve the availability
and affordability of insurance coverage
for carriers engaged in cross-border
commerce in North America.’’ 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 Regulations 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 business.
FMCSA recognizes the importance of
considering these requests, and has
granted the petitions by initiating this
rulemaking proceeding to solicit public
comment on the safety, legal, and
economic ramifications of Canada’s
proposal and PCI’s related proposal.
The PCI Petition
The Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America’s (PCI) petition,
filed on July 2, 2004, was prompted by
a Federal Court decision holding that
the Form MCS–90B endorsement
applied to a crash that occurred in
Mexico, based on language in the
endorsement stating that it applied to
transportation ‘‘on any route or on any
territory authorized to be served by the
insured or elsewhere.’’ 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.’’
PCI believes a territorial limitation
excluding transportation in Mexico
would work in concert with Canada’s
request because granting Canada’s
request without addressing PCI’s request
could put both U.S. and Canadian
insurers in the position of violating the
Mexican Federal law, which requires
third-party liability insurance to be
written by Mexico-domiciled insurers
alone. PCI suggested that application of
the Form MCS–90 and MCS–90B
endorsements to accidents occurring in
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75435
Mexico also appears to contradict the
original intent of the endorsements to
apply to interstate commerce within the
United States, not internationally.
Request for Information and Comments
FMCSA requests data and comments
in response to the following questions,
as well as on other issues related to the
two petitions.
A. Regarding the proposal to allow
Canadian insurance companies to issue
commercial motor vehicle insurance
policies covering Canadian motor
carriers while operating in the United
States:
(1) What has been the experience of
motorists or other claimants for crashes
involving other types of vehicles, such
as passenger cars driven in the United
States but insured by Canadian firms, in
collecting damage claims filed with
Canadian insurance companies for
incidents that occur in the United
States? Are the consumer protection
systems in place in Canada adequate to
ensure proper consideration of claims
filed by U.S. citizens and businesses?
(2) Would it be more difficult to
execute a U.S. court judgment against a
Canadian motor carrier insured by a
Canadian insurance company compared
to a Canadian motor carrier insured by
a U.S. insurance company?
(3) Would Canadian insurance
companies be legally bound, under
Canadian law, to make payment to U.S.
claimants based on a final judgment
issued by a U.S. court?
(4) 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?
(5) Although the petition proposes
amending only § 387.11, is there any
reason why the proposal should not be
extended to include insurance policies
issued to Canadian passenger carriers
and freight forwarders?
B. Regarding the PCI proposal to
modify text in Form MCS–90 to exclude
coverage for transportation occurring in
Mexico:
(1) How would U.S. and Canadian
insurance companies be impacted by
defining the term ‘‘any territory’’ to
include or exclude transportation
within Mexico?
(2) Does the manner in which ‘‘any
territory’’ is defined have any impact on
the U.S. public? If so, whom would it
affect in particular?
(3) How have the courts addressed the
meaning of the term ‘‘any territory’’ on
the MCS–90 or MCS–90B form?
(4) Is there a U.S. public interest in
including any territory outside the
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
75436
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
United States in the coverage provided
by the MCS–90 or MCS–90B
endorsement?
(5) Would applying the MCS–90 and
MCS–90B endorsements to
transportation in Mexico expose U.S.
and Canadian motor carriers and
insurers to criminal liability?
(6) What evidence is there to support
PCI’s contention that the endorsements
were not intended to apply to
transportation in Mexico?
If addressing a specific request for
comments in this ANPRM, please
clearly identify the related section
heading or question number for each
topic addressed in your comments.
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) or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment
closing date will be included in the
docket and the Agency will consider
late comments to the extent practicable.
FMCSA may, however, issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking at any time after
the close of the comment period.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has determined this ANPRM
is not a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and the Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).
The Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions it
may initiate in response to this ANPRM.
FMCSA seeks comments about the
following issues to guide our analysis
for a potential notice of proposed
rulemaking:
(1) The costs and benefits of
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives to the current
regulations, including improving the
current regulation and reasonably viable
non-regulatory actions; and
(2) Any preliminary impact
assessments of these regulatory and
non-regulatory alternatives.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 14, 2006
Jkt 211001
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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), requires Federal agencies to
analyze the impact of regulatory
alternatives on small entities, unless
FMCSA certifies that a regulatory
alternative will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and to
consider non-regulatory alternatives that
could achieve our goal while
minimizing the burden on small
entities. The RFA applies to rules only
at the proposed and final stage and,
therefore, does not apply to this
ANPRM. FMCSA requests comments on
the potential impacts on small entities
to assist its small entity analysis if the
Agency decides to issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Although the Agency believes there
are no Federalism issues, we are not yet
in a position to analyze fully any
potential actions in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999).
The Agency specifically requests
comment from State and local officials
on any Federalism issues.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 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 $120.7 million or
more in 2003 dollars in any one year,
must prepare a written statement
incorporating various assessments,
estimates, and descriptions that are
delineated in the Act. Although FMCSA
believes there would be no unfunded
mandates arising from any change in the
current regulatory standards, the
Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions it
may initiate and that may meet the
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
FMCSA seeks specific comments
whether such impacts are likely for any
regulatory or non-regulatory alternative
for Agency consideration.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), a Federal
agency must obtain approval from OMB
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for each collection of information it
conducts, sponsors, or requires through
regulations. This ANPRM calls for no
new collection of information. However,
the Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential action we
may initiate that may fall within the
scope of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
National Environmental Policy Act
This ANPRM is not expected to have
environmental impacts, although the
Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions
under the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and our
environmental procedures Order 5610.1,
issued on March 1, 2004, 69 FR 9680.
The Agency believes potential actions
we may initiate in response to this
ANPRM may be categorically excluded
(CE) from further environmental
documentation under Appendix 2.6.d.
and 2.6.v. of Order 5610.1, which
contain categorical exclusions for
regulations concerning the training,
qualifying, licensing, certifying, and
managing of personnel and regulations
establishing financial responsibility
requirements. In addition, FMCSA
believes potential actions the Agency
may initiate would not involve
extraordinary circumstances that would
affect the quality of the environment.
Clean Air Act
FMCSA is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions
under the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), as amended, section 176(c),
(42 U.S.C. 7401–7671) and
implementing regulations promulgated
by the Environmental Protection
Agency. FMCSA believes potential
actions the Agency may initiate would
be exempt from the CAA’s general
conformity requirement since they
would involve 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). The Agency anticipates
potential actions we may initiate in
response to this ANPRM 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
potential actions would merely relate to
insurance coverage across borders.
The Agency seeks comment on the
effect on the environment of any
potential action alternatives.
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
The Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions that
may constitute a taking of private
property or otherwise have taking
implications under Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
FMCSA seeks comment on whether
potential actions it may initiate in
response to this ANPRM would
constitute a taking of private property or
otherwise have implications under
Executive Order 12630.
Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
The Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions that
may require intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities under Executive Order 12372,
as amended.
FMCSA seeks comment on whether
potential actions the Agency may
initiate in response to this ANPRM
would require any intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities under Executive Order 12372,
as amended.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
FMCSA is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions that
may affect energy supply, distribution,
or use under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
The Agency seeks comment on
whether potential actions the Agency
may initiate in response to this ANPRM
would affect any regulatory or nonregulatory alternatives that may
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or use.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
The Agency is not yet in a position to
analyze fully any potential actions that
may meet 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.
The Agency seeks comment on
whether potential actions FMCSA may
initiate in response to this ANPRM
would meet the standards in Executive
Order 12988.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 387
Buses, Freight, Freight forwarders,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Highway safety, Insurance,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 14, 2006
Jkt 211001
Intergovernmental relations, Motor
carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of
household goods, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Surety
bonds.
Issued on: November 28, 2006.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–21314 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 061130320–6320–01 ; I.D.
112206B]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska;
Proposed 2007 and 2008 Harvest
Specifications for Groundfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2007 and
2008 harvest specifications, reserves
and apportionments, and Pacific halibut
prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for
the groundfish fishery of the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary
to establish harvest limits for groundfish
during the 2007 and 2008 fishing years
and to accomplish the goals and
objectives of the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (FMP). The intended effect of
this action is to conserve and manage
the groundfish resources in the GOA in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Walsh, Records Officer. Comments
may be submitted by:
• Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802;
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK;
• E-mail to 2007tacspecs@noaa.gov
and include in the subject line the
document identifier: ‘‘2007 Proposed
Specifications’’ (E-mail comments, with
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75437
or without attachments, are limited to 5
megabytes);
• Fax to 907–586–7557; or
• Webform at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at that site for submitting
comments.
Copies of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
prepared for this action are available
from NMFS at the addresses above or
from the Alaska Region website at
https://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Copies of the
final 2005 Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for the
groundfish resources of the GOA, dated
November 2005, and the October 2006
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) meeting minutes are
available from the Council at West 4th
Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK
99510 or from its website at https://
www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Pearson, Sustainable Fisheries Division,
Alaska Region, 907–481–1780, or e-mail
at tom.pearson@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the GOA groundfish fisheries
in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of
the GOA under the FMP. The Council
prepared the FMP under the authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.
1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S.
fisheries and implementing the FMP
appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and
680.
These proposed specifications are
based in large part on the 2005 SAFE
reports. In November 2006, the 2006
SAFE reports will be used to develop
the 2007 and 2008 final acceptable
biological catch (ABC) amounts.
Anticipated changes in the final
specifications from the proposed
specifications are identified in this
notice for public review.
The FMP and its implementing
regulations require NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, to
specify the total allowable catch (TAC)
for each target species and for the ‘‘other
species’’ category, the sum of which
must be within the optimum yield (OY)
range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons
(mt). Section 679.20(c)(1) further
requires NMFS to publish and solicit
public comment on proposed annual
TACs, halibut PSC amounts, and
seasonal allowances of pollock and
inshore/offshore Pacific cod. The
proposed specifications in Tables 1
through 20 of this document satisfy
these requirements. For 2007, the sum
of the proposed TAC amounts is
264,367 mt. For 2008, the sum of the
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75433-75437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21314]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
Petitions for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces it is considering whether to amend its financial
responsibility requirements for motor carriers in response to two
petitions for rulemaking. The Government of Canada (Canada) petitioned
FMCSA to amend these requirements to permit, as acceptable evidence of
financial responsibility, a policy of insurance issued by a Canadian
insurance company legally authorized to issue such policies in the
Province or Territory of Canada where the motor carrier has its
principal place of business. Canada believes the FMCSA's current
regulations place Canada-domiciled motor carriers operating in the
United States at a competitive
[[Page 75434]]
disadvantage with U.S.-domiciled carriers. The Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America (PCI) petitioned FMCSA to make
revisions to the MCS-90 and MCS-90B endorsements to clarify that
language in the endorsements imposing liability for negligence
occurring ``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. FMCSA seeks input from the public in the
form of data or other information in response to several questions
posed in the ANPRM to assist the Agency in evaluating these proposals.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 13, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
(FMCSA-2006-26262) by any of the following methods:
Web site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
FAX: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
regulatory action. Internet users may access comments received by DOT
at: https://dms.dot.gov. Note that comments received will be posted
without change to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading for further
information. If addressing a specific section or question in this
ANPRM, please clearly identify the section heading or question number
for each topic addressed in your comments.
Docket: Copies or abstracts of all documents referenced in this
notice are in the docket for this rulemaking: FMCSA-2006-26262. For
access to the docket to read background documents or comments received,
go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Division of
Driver and Carrier Operations (MC-PSD), FMCSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-4009, or FAX 202-366-8842.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-296, 94
Stat. 793, July 1, 1980) directed 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 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 self-
insurer (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.
Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-
261, 96 Stat. 1121 (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 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, 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, which
are codified at 49 CFR Part 387, subpart B.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is based on the
Secretary's authority to establish methods and procedures to assure
that for-hire motor carriers of property and passengers maintain
acceptable evidence of financial responsibility in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31138(c)(1) and 31139(f)(1). This authority has been delegated
to FMCSA by the Secretary pursuant to 49 CFR 1.73(f).
Background
The Canada Petition
The Government of Canada (Canada) submitted a Petition for
Rulemaking to amend 49 CFR part 387 on September 29, 2005. Canada
specifically requested that FMCSA amend Sec. 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, to issue
the Form MCS-90 endorsements on insurance policies 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 Sec. Sec. 387.7 and 387.11
require Canada-
[[Page 75435]]
domiciled motor carriers operating in the United States to either: (1)
Obtain insurance through a Canada-licensed 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. Canada
suggested 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. Approximately 17,000
Canadian motor carriers with 184,000 power units operate in the United
States.
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.
If accepted, the amendment would eliminate the need for Canadian
insurance companies to link with a U.S. insurance company to legally
insure Canadian motor carriers 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 have to be changed for the sake of consistency.
Section 387.35 applies the Sec. 387.11 requirements to motor passenger
carriers, which must obtain a Form MCS-90B endorsement. Furthermore,
Sec. 387.315 imposes the same requirements on motor carriers who must
file evidence of insurance with FMCSA and Sec. 387.409 applies these
requirements to freight forwarders.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)
reinforces the resolution of cross-border motor carrier insurance
issues. The President of the United States, the Prime Minister of
Canada, and the President of Mexico announced this initiative on March
23, 2005. 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. One of the
stated initiatives in the report is to ``Seek ways to improve the
availability and affordability of insurance coverage for carriers
engaged in cross-border commerce in North America.'' 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 Regulations 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 business. FMCSA recognizes the importance of
considering these requests, and has granted the petitions by initiating
this rulemaking proceeding to solicit public comment on the safety,
legal, and economic ramifications of Canada's proposal and PCI's
related proposal.
The PCI Petition
The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America's (PCI)
petition, filed on July 2, 2004, was prompted by a Federal Court
decision holding that the Form MCS-90B endorsement applied to a crash
that occurred in Mexico, based on language in the endorsement stating
that it applied to transportation ``on any route or on any territory
authorized to be served by the insured or elsewhere.'' 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.''
PCI believes a territorial limitation excluding transportation in
Mexico would work in concert with Canada's request because granting
Canada's request without addressing PCI's request could put both U.S.
and Canadian insurers in the position of violating the Mexican Federal
law, which requires third-party liability insurance to be written by
Mexico-domiciled insurers alone. PCI suggested that application of the
Form MCS-90 and MCS-90B endorsements to accidents occurring in Mexico
also appears to contradict the original intent of the endorsements to
apply to interstate commerce within the United States, not
internationally.
Request for Information and Comments
FMCSA requests data and comments in response to the following
questions, as well as on other issues related to the two petitions.
A. Regarding the proposal to allow Canadian insurance companies to
issue commercial motor vehicle insurance policies covering Canadian
motor carriers while operating in the United States:
(1) What has been the experience of motorists or other claimants
for crashes involving other types of vehicles, such as passenger cars
driven in the United States but insured by Canadian firms, in
collecting damage claims filed with Canadian insurance companies for
incidents that occur in the United States? Are the consumer protection
systems in place in Canada adequate to ensure proper consideration of
claims filed by U.S. citizens and businesses?
(2) Would it be more difficult to execute a U.S. court judgment
against a Canadian motor carrier insured by a Canadian insurance
company compared to a Canadian motor carrier insured by a U.S.
insurance company?
(3) Would Canadian insurance companies be legally bound, under
Canadian law, to make payment to U.S. claimants based on a final
judgment issued by a U.S. court?
(4) 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?
(5) Although the petition proposes amending only Sec. 387.11, is
there any reason why the proposal should not be extended to include
insurance policies issued to Canadian passenger carriers and freight
forwarders?
B. Regarding the PCI proposal to modify text in Form MCS-90 to
exclude coverage for transportation occurring in Mexico:
(1) How would U.S. and Canadian insurance companies be impacted by
defining the term ``any territory'' to include or exclude
transportation within Mexico?
(2) Does the manner in which ``any territory'' is defined have any
impact on the U.S. public? If so, whom would it affect in particular?
(3) How have the courts addressed the meaning of the term ``any
territory'' on the MCS-90 or MCS-90B form?
(4) Is there a U.S. public interest in including any territory
outside the
[[Page 75436]]
United States in the coverage provided by the MCS-90 or MCS-90B
endorsement?
(5) Would applying the MCS-90 and MCS-90B endorsements to
transportation in Mexico expose U.S. and Canadian motor carriers and
insurers to criminal liability?
(6) What evidence is there to support PCI's contention that the
endorsements were not intended to apply to transportation in Mexico?
If addressing a specific request for comments in this ANPRM, please
clearly identify the related section heading or question number for
each topic addressed in your comments.
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) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included
in the docket and the Agency will consider late comments to the extent
practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
at any time after the close of the comment period.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has determined this ANPRM is not a significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the Department
of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034,
February 26, 1979).
The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions it may initiate in response to this ANPRM. FMCSA seeks comments
about the following issues to guide our analysis for a potential notice
of proposed rulemaking:
(1) The costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives to the current regulations, including improving
the current regulation and reasonably viable non-regulatory actions;
and
(2) Any preliminary impact assessments of these regulatory and non-
regulatory alternatives.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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), requires Federal agencies to analyze the impact of
regulatory alternatives on small entities, unless FMCSA certifies that
a regulatory alternative will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, and to consider non-regulatory
alternatives that could achieve our goal while minimizing the burden on
small entities. The RFA applies to rules only at the proposed and final
stage and, therefore, does not apply to this ANPRM. FMCSA requests
comments on the potential impacts on small entities to assist its small
entity analysis if the Agency decides to issue a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Although the Agency believes there are no Federalism issues, we are
not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
The Agency specifically requests comment from State and local
officials on any Federalism issues.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 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 $120.7 million or more in 2003 dollars in
any one year, must prepare a written statement incorporating various
assessments, estimates, and descriptions that are delineated in the
Act. Although FMCSA believes there would be no unfunded mandates
arising from any change in the current regulatory standards, the Agency
is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions it may
initiate and that may meet the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
FMCSA seeks specific comments whether such impacts are likely for
any regulatory or non-regulatory alternative for Agency consideration.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a
Federal agency must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of
information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations.
This ANPRM calls for no new collection of information. However, the
Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential action
we may initiate that may fall within the scope of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
National Environmental Policy Act
This ANPRM is not expected to have environmental impacts, although
the Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and our environmental procedures Order
5610.1, issued on March 1, 2004, 69 FR 9680. The Agency believes
potential actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM may be
categorically excluded (CE) from further environmental documentation
under Appendix 2.6.d. and 2.6.v. of Order 5610.1, which contain
categorical exclusions for regulations concerning the training,
qualifying, licensing, certifying, and managing of personnel and
regulations establishing financial responsibility requirements. In
addition, FMCSA believes potential actions the Agency may initiate
would not involve extraordinary circumstances that would affect the
quality of the environment.
Clean Air Act
FMCSA is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions under the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended,
section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671) and implementing regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. FMCSA believes
potential actions the Agency may initiate would be exempt from the
CAA's general conformity requirement since they would involve 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). The Agency anticipates potential
actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM 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
potential actions would merely relate to insurance coverage across
borders.
The Agency seeks comment on the effect on the environment of any
potential action alternatives.
[[Page 75437]]
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions that may constitute a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
FMCSA seeks comment on whether potential actions it may initiate in
response to this ANPRM would constitute a taking of private property or
otherwise have implications under Executive Order 12630.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions that may require intergovernmental consultation on Federal
programs and activities under Executive Order 12372, as amended.
FMCSA seeks comment on whether potential actions the Agency may
initiate in response to this ANPRM would require any intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities under Executive Order
12372, as amended.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
FMCSA is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions that may affect energy supply, distribution, or use under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
The Agency seeks comment on whether potential actions the Agency
may initiate in response to this ANPRM would affect any regulatory or
non-regulatory alternatives that may significantly affect energy
supply, distribution, or use.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential
actions that may meet 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.
The Agency seeks comment on whether potential actions FMCSA may
initiate in response to this ANPRM would meet the standards in
Executive Order 12988.
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.
Issued on: November 28, 2006.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-21314 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
