I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This submission has been occasioned by issues relevant to those BMC-85 collateralization disputes currently under consideration raised by The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association in that industry “stakeholder’s” own “Supplemental Comments” posted on 27 March 2019. Accordingly, further to Transport Financial Service’s (TFS’s) initial “Comment” on the referenced ANPRM posted on 27 November 2018 generally, when considered within the context of Sunbelt Finance’s corresponding “Comments” posted on 12 December 2018 specific to the informed opinions of a major segment of the motor carrier receivable factoring industry regarding the efficacy of by far the largest BMC-85 provider, Pacific Financial Association, with respect to surety claims management, the entirety of both of which are hereby incorporated as organic elements of this submission by this reference, the following “Supplemental Comments” are intended as a response to all previous submissions from other parties thereto predicated on the necessity of future FMCSA rulemaking addressing some currently disputed regular shortcoming in (to cite the precise language of the ANPRM) “…the financial wherewithal of BMC-85 trust providers, and the sufficiency of the assets within those funds to pay legitimate claims by motor carriers or shippers.” To be sure, there’s a fundamental conceptual problem with any such rulemaking in accordance with the FMCSA’s current statuary imperatives.