Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement, 45583-45597 [E9-21232]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
52.209–XX Information Regarding
Responsibility Matters.
8. Amend section 9.407–3 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If the contractor enters into an
administrative agreement with the
Government in order to resolve a
suspension proceeding, the suspension
official shall access the website at
llllll and enter the requested
information.
PART 12—ACQUISITION OF
COMMERICAL ITEMS
9. Amend section 12.301 by adding
paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
12.301 Solicitation provisions and
contract clauses for the acquisition of
commercial items.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) Insert the provision at 52.209–XX,
Information Regarding Responsibility
Matters, as prescribed in 9.104–7(b).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS
AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
10. Amend section 52.209–5 by
removing from the introductory
paragraph the phrase ‘‘9.104–6’’ and
adding ‘‘9.104–7(a)’’ in its place; and by
revising the date of the provision and
paragraph (a)(1)(B) to read as follows:
52.209–5 Certification Regarding
Responsibility Matters.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
CERTIFICATION REGARDING
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DATE)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(B)(i) Have [ ] have not [ ], within a threeyear period preceding this offer, been
convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered
against them for: commission of fraud or a
criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or
performing a public (Federal, State, or local)
contract or subcontract; violation of Federal
or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making
false statements, tax evasion, violating
Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen
property (If offeror checks ‘‘have’’, the offeror
shall also see 52.209–XX).
*
*
*
*
*
11. Add section 52.209–XX to read as
follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
(End of provision)
[FR Doc. E9–21174 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am]
As prescribed at 9.104–7(b), insert the
following provision:
(f) If the contractor enters into an
administrative agreement with the
Government in order to resolve a
debarment proceeding, the debarment
official shall access the website at
llllll and enter the requested
information.
9.407–3
45583
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
INFORMATION REGARDING
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DATE)
(a) Definition.
Principal, as used in this provision, means
an officer, director, owner, partner, or a
person having primary management or
supervisory responsibilities within a
business entity (e.g., general manager; plant
manager; head of a subsidiary, division, or
business segment; and similar positions).
Federal contracts and grants with total
value (including any options) greater than
$10,000,000 means—
(1) The value, at the time of their award,
of the current, active contracts and grants,
including all priced options; and
(2) The total value, at the time of their
award, of all current, active orders under
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, 8(a),
or requirements contracts (including task and
delivery and multiple-award schedules).
(b) The offeror [ ] has [ ] does not have
current active Federal contracts and grants
with total value (including any options)
greater than $10,000,000.
(c) If the offeror checked ‘‘has’’ in
paragraph (b) of this provision, the offeror
represents, by submission of this proposal,
that its information in the Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information
System (FAPIIS) is current, accurate, and
complete as of the date of submission of this
proposal with regard to the following
information:
(1) Whether the offeror, and/or any of its
principals, has or has not, within the last five
years, been involved in civil or criminal
proceeding, or any administrative
proceeding, in connection with the award to
or performance by the offeror of a Federal or
State contract or grant, to the extent that such
proceeding resulted in any of the following
dispositions:
(i) In a criminal proceeding, a conviction.
(ii) In a civil proceeding, a finding of fault
and liability that results in the payment of a
monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement,
restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more.
(iii) In an administrative proceeding, a
finding of fault and liability that results in—
(A) The payment of a monetary fine or
penalty of $5,000 or more; or
(B) The payment of a reimbursement,
restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000.
(iv) To the maximum extent practicable
and consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, in a criminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding, a disposition of
the matter by consent or compromise with an
acknowledgment of fault by the Contractor if
the proceeding could have led to any of the
outcomes specified in subparagraphs (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this section.
(2) If the offeror has been involved in the
last five years in any of the occurrences listed
in (c)(1) of this section, whether the offeror
has provided the requested information with
regard to each occurrence.
(d) The offeror, if awarded a contract as a
result of this solicitation, shall update the
information in the FAPIIS on a semi-annual
basis, throughout the life of the contract.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 367
[Docket No. FMCSA–2009–0231]
RIN 2126–AB19
Fees for the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
establish annual registration fees and a
fee bracket structure for the Unified
Carrier Registration (UCR) Agreement
for the calendar year beginning on
January 1, 2010, as required under the
Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005,
enacted as Subtitle C of Title IV of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users, as amended.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before September 18, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number FMCSA–
2009–0231 and/or RIN 2126–AB19, by
any of the following methods—Internet,
facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS)
Web site at https://www.regulations.gov.
The FDMS is the preferred method for
submitting comments, and we urge you
to use it. In the ‘‘Comment’’ or
‘‘Submission’’ section, type Docket ID
Number ‘‘FMCSA—2009—0231’’, select
‘‘Go’’, and then click on ‘‘Send a
Comment or Submission.’’ You will
receive a tracking number when you
submit a comment.
Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations (M–30), West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Office hours are between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Docket: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
background information and documents
mentioned in this preamble, are part of
docket FMCSA–2009–0231, and are
available for inspection and copying on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. You may also
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45584
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
view and copy documents at the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s Docket
Operations Unit, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.
Privacy Act: All comments will be
posted without change including any
personal information provided to the
FDMS at https://www.regulations.gov.
Anyone can search the electronic form
of all our dockets in FDMS, by the name
of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc). The
Department of Transportation’s (DOT)
complete Privacy Act Statement was
published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can
be viewed at https://docketsinfo.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment
closing date will be included in the
docket, and we will consider late
comments to the extent practicable.
FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule
at any time after the close of the
comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Julie Otto, Office of Enforcement and
Program Delivery, (202) 366–0701,
FMCSA, Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington,
DC 20590 or by e-mail at:
FMCSAregs@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
preamble is organized as follows:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
II. Statutory Requirements for the UCR Fees
III. Background of UCR Fees 2007 to Present
IV. UCR Fee Proposals for Calendar Year
2010
A. The UCR Plan Recommendation
1. Certification of State Revenues
2. Administrative Costs
3. Revenue Target
4. Carrier Population
5. Number of Fee Brackets
6. Fee Levels for Each Bracket
B. The FMCSA Analysis
1. Bracket Shifting
2. Compliance and Enforcement
3. The Board’s Response to FMCSA
Concerns: Alternative Proposals
V. The FMCSA Fee Proposal
A. Adjustment for Change in CMV
Definition
B. Registration Percentage Reasonableness
(RPR) Factor
C. Shortfall Adjustment Factor
D. FMCSA Adjustments
VI. Regulatory Changes
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This proposed rule involves an
adjustment in the annual registration
fees for the Unified Carrier Registration
Agreement (UCR Agreement)
established by 49 U.S.C. 14504a,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
enacted by section 4305(b) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU) (119 Stat. 1144,
1764 (2005)). Section 14504a states that
the ‘‘Unified Carrier Registration Plan
* * * mean[s] the organization * * *
responsible for developing,
implementing, and administering the
unified carrier registration agreement’’
(49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(9)) (UCR Plan). The
UCR Agreement developed by the UCR
Plan is the ‘‘interstate agreement
governing the collection and
distribution of registration and financial
responsibility information provided and
fees paid by motor carriers, motor
private carriers, brokers, freight
forwarders and leasing companies
* * *.’’ (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(8)).
Congress in SAFETEA–LU also
repealed 49 U.S.C. 14504 governing the
Single State Registration System (SSRS)
(SAFETEA–LU section 4305(a)).1 The
legislative history indicates that the
purpose of the UCR Plan and Agreement
is both to ‘‘replace the existing outdated
system [SSRS]’’ for registration of
interstate motor carrier entities with the
States and to ‘‘ensure that States don’t
lose current revenues derived from
SSRS’’ (S. Rep. 109–120, at 2 (2005)).2
The statute provides for a 15-member
Board of Directors for the UCR Plan and
Agreement (Board) to be appointed by
the Secretary of Transportation. The
statute specifies that the Board should
consist of one individual (either the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) Deputy
Administrator or another Presidential
appointee) from the Department of
Transportation; four directors (one from
each of the four FMCSA service areas),
selected from among the chief
administrative officers of the State
agencies responsible for administering
the UCR Agreement; five directors from
among the professional staffs of State
agencies responsible for administering
the UCR Agreement, to be nominated by
the National Conference of State
Transportation Specialists (NCSTS); and
five directors representing the motor
carrier industry, of whom at least one
must be from a national trade
association representing the general
motor carrier of property industry and
one from a motor carrier that falls
within the smallest fleet fee bracket. The
1 This repeal became effective on January 1, 2008,
in accordance with section 4305(a) of SAFETEA–
LU and section 1537(c) of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, Pub. L. 110–53, 121 Stat. 266, 467 (Aug. 3,
2007).
2 The Senate bill’s provisions were enacted ‘‘with
modifications.’’ H. Conf. Rep. No. 109–203, at 1020
(2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
establishment of the Board was
announced in the Federal Register on
May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27777). On July 19,
2007 (72 FR 39660), FMCSA published
a notice announcing the reappointment
to the Board of the five Board members
from the State agencies nominated by
NCSTS. On June 30 2008, (73 FR 36956)
FMCSA published a notice announcing
the reappointment of the members from
the four FMCSA service areas to the
Board.
Among its responsibilities, the Board
is required to submit to the Secretary of
Transportation 3 a recommendation for
the initial annual fees to be assessed
motor carriers, motor private carriers,
freight forwarders, brokers and leasing
companies (49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A)).
FMCSA is directed to set the fees within
90 days after receiving the Board’s
recommendation and after notice and
opportunity for public comment (49
U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(B)). Subsequent
adjustment to the fees and fee brackets
must be adopted following the same
timelines and procedures of
recommendation by the Board and
review and adoption by FMCSA after
notice and an opportunity for public
comment (Id). As provided in 49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(1)(B): ‘‘The fees shall be
determined by [FMCSA] based upon the
recommendations of the [UCR] Board
* * *.’’ The statute also directs both the
Board and FMCSA to consider several
relevant factors in their respective roles
of recommending and setting the fees
[49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A), (f)(1) and
(g)]. Thus, FMCSA has an obligation to
consider independently the Board’s
recommendation in light of the statutory
requirements, and to make its own
determination of the appropriate fees
and fee bracket structure, including
modifying the Board’s recommendation,
if necessary.
II. Statutory Requirements for the UCR
Fees
The statute specifies that fees are to be
determined by FMCSA based upon the
recommendation of the Board. In
recommending the level of fees to be
assessed in any agreement year, and in
setting the fee level, both the Board and
FMCSA shall consider the following
factors:
1. Administrative costs associated
with the UCR Plan and Agreement.
2. Whether the revenues generated in
the previous year and any surplus or
shortage from that or prior years enable
3 The Secretary’s functions under section 14504a
have been delegated to the Administrator of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 49
CFR 1.73(a)(7), as amended (71 FR 30833 May 31,
2006).
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the participating States to achieve the
revenue levels set by the Board.
3. Provisions governing fees in 49
U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1).
Subsection (f)(1) provides that the fees
charged must satisfy the following
criteria:
Fees charged to a motor carrier, motor
private carrier, or freight forwarder
under the UCR Agreement shall be
based on the number of commercial
motor vehicles owned or operated by
the motor carrier, motor private carrier,
or freight forwarder. The statute initially
defined ‘‘commercial motor vehicles’’
(CMVs) for this purpose as including
both self-propelled and towed vehicles
[former 49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(1)(A) and
31101(1)]. The fees set in 2007, and
applied as well in 2008 and 2009, were
determined on that basis. However,
section 701(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 110–
432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4906 (Oct. 16,
2008) amended the definition of CMV
for the purpose of setting UCR fees for
years beginning after December 31,
2009, to mean a ‘‘self-propelled vehicle
described in section 31101’’ (49 U.S.C.
14504a(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
Fees charged to a broker or leasing
company under the UCR Agreement
shall be equal to the smallest fee
charged to a motor carrier, motor private
carrier, and freight forwarder, or to the
smallest fee charged under the UCR
Agreement.
Section 14504a(f)(1) also stipulates
that for the purpose of charging fees the
Board shall develop no more than 6 and
no fewer than 4 brackets of carriers
(including motor private carriers) based
on the size of the fleet, i.e., the number
of CMVs owned or operated. The fee
scale is required to be progressive in the
amount of the fee. The registration fees
for the UCR Agreement may be adjusted
within a reasonable range on an annual
basis if the revenues derived from the
fees are either insufficient to provide the
participating States with the revenues
they are entitled to receive or exceed
those revenues (49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(1)(E)).
Overall, the fees assessed under the
UCR Agreement must produce the level
of revenue established by statute.
Section 14504a(g) establishes the
revenue entitlements for States that
choose to participate in the UCR Plan.
That section provides that a
participating State, which participated
in SSRS in the registration year prior to
the enactment of the Unified Carrier
Registration Act of 2005 (i.e., the 2004
registration year), is entitled to receive
revenues under the UCR Agreement
equivalent to the revenues it received in
2004. Participating States that also
collected intrastate registration fees
from interstate motor carrier entities
(whether or not they participated in
SSRS) are also entitled to receive
revenues of this type under the UCR
Agreement, in an amount equivalent to
the amount received in the 2004
registration year. The section also
requires that States which did not
participate in SSRS in 2004, but which
45585
choose to participate in the UCR Plan,
may receive revenues not to exceed
$500,000 per year.
III. Background of UCR Fees 2007 to
Present
The initial UCR fees and fee structure
was published by FMCSA on August 24,
2007 (72 FR 48585), which allowed the
Board to begin collecting fees (49 U.S.C.
14504a). On February 1, 2008, the Board
submitted the 2008 recommendation to
FMCSA indicating that it was ‘‘too early
to ascertain whether the revenues
collected in 2007 will equal or
approximate the total revenue’’ to which
the States are entitled. A copy of this
recommendation is provided in this
docket. As a result, on February 26,
2008 (73 FR 10157), FMCSA published
correcting amendments to the 2007 final
rule, clarifying that the fees and fee
structure were established for every
registration year unless (and until) the
Board recommended an adjustment to
the annual fees (73 FR 10157). On July
11, 2008, the Board sent a letter to
FMCSA stating that the fees would
remain the same as 2007. The Board
stated that ‘‘additional time to register
entities, check that carriers registered in
the correct bracket, and establish
effective roadside enforcement’’ would
result in better collection of revenue. A
copy of this letter is provided in this
docket. The table below shows the fees
and fee structure in place from 2007 to
2009.
TABLE 1—UCR FEES AND FEE STRUCTURE 2007–2009
Number of commercial motor vehicles owned or operated
by exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor private
carrier, or freight
forwarder
Fee per entity
for exempt or
non-exempt
motor carrier,
motor private
carrier, or
freight
forwarder
Fee per entity
for broker or
leasing
company
0–2 .......................................................................................
3–5 .......................................................................................
6–20 .....................................................................................
21–100 .................................................................................
101–1,000 ............................................................................
1,001 and above ..................................................................
$39
116
231
806
3,840
37,500
$39
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Bracket
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
From collection years 2007 to the
present, some participating States have
achieved their revenue entitlement
while others have exceeded it. In the
latter case, the excess amount is
forwarded to a depository established by
the Board for distribution to those States
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
that have not collected enough fees to
reach their entitlement (49 U.S.C.
14504a(h)(2) and (3)). However, overall,
revenue collections in 2009, like the
previous years, have fallen short. The
following table shows the amount of
revenue shortfall for each registration
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
year, based on information provided by
the Board. Figures to date show that
States are approximately 28 percent
short of collecting their revenue
entitlement.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45586
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—UCR REGISTRATION SUMMARY 2007 TO 2009 *
Registration year
State revenue
entitlement
2007 .................................................................................................................
2008 .................................................................................................................
2009 .................................................................................................................
$101,772,400
107,777,060
107,777,060
Entities
registered
237,157
270,794
282,483
Revenue
received
Revenue
shortfall
$73,937,310
76,617,155
77,148,988
$27,835,090
31,159,905
30,628,072
* Does not include estimated administrative expenses and revenue reserve that are included in the overall revenue target.
Beginning in early 2009, the Board
began discussions to address the
shortfall in the 2010 fee
recommendation. On February 12, 2009,
the Board held a public meeting by
telephone conference call to discuss the
2010 fees and fee structure. At that
meeting, a motion was made to
recommend a proposal that passed with
a vote of 10 to 3 with one abstention. On
April 3, 2009, the Board submitted a
recommendation based on this proposal
to the Secretary.
Upon review by FMCSA, several
fundamental issues were identified in
the assumptions of the April 3
recommendation. To clarify the issues
and assist the Board, FMCSA hosted a
conference call on April 23, 2009, with
the Board’s chair and the chair of the
Revenue and Fees Subcommittee. After
this discussion, the Subcommittee met
and discussed several options at the
May 14, 2009, Board meeting. No
consensus was reached. At the June 16,
2009, meeting, the Board discussed
informal options developed by a
member of both the Board and the
Revenue and Fees Subcommittee. The
Board voted to reconsider the April 3
recommendation upon hearing these
new options and the matter was referred
back to the Subcommittee for further
action. At the July 9, 2009, meeting, a
vote was taken on two new options but
the Board was unable to reach
consensus on either proposal with both
options receiving an equal number of
votes. On July 15, 2009, the Board sent
a letter to the Secretary noting this fact
and asked FMCSA to proceed with the
rulemaking process using the April 3
recommendation.
The following sections in this notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) discuss
the Board recommendation and other
proposals in greater detail and outline
the areas where FMCSA encouraged the
Board to address the issues of greatest
concern. Section V details the FMCSArecommended 2010 UCR fees and fee
structure. The NPRM concludes with
the regulatory analysis and notices.
IV. UCR Fee Proposals for Calendar
Year 2010
In the course of developing its fee
recommendation for 2010, the Board
considered several different proposals,
both before and after submitting a
recommendation on April 3, 2009. Some
of these proposals, in addition to the
proposal formally recommended, were
either supported by different interests
on the Board or were considered for
possible substitution for the
recommended proposal. Each proposal
is set out in this NPRM for public
comment; however, FMCSA does not
believe that each proposal satisfies the
statutory requirements. After setting out
and assessing each proposal, FMCSA
proposes a fee and fee bracket structure
that is based on one of the proposals
with modifications to meet the statutory
requirements.
A. The UCR Plan Recommendation
The first proposal is the UCR Plan
formal recommendation. The Board’s
fee recommendation was approved by a
vote of a majority of the members of the
Board on February 12, 2009, and was
submitted to the Secretary on April 3,
2009. It is available at https://
www.regulations.gov under the docket
number shown above. It recommends
establishing the fee and fee bracket
structure shown in the following table:
TABLE 3—UCR BOARD FORMAL FEE AND BRACKET RECOMMENDATION FOR 2010 TRANSMITTED ON APRIL 3, 2009
Number of commercial motor vehicles owned or operated
by exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor private
carrier, or freight forwarder
Fee per entity
for exempt or
non-exempt
motor carrier,
motor private
carrier, or
freight
forwarder
Fee per entity
for broker or
leasing
company
0–1 .......................................................................................
2–5 .......................................................................................
6–20 .....................................................................................
21–100 .................................................................................
101–1,000 ............................................................................
1,001 and above ..................................................................
$83
166
497
1,741
8,373
82,983
$83
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Bracket
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
The Board assigned its Revenue and
Fees Subcommittee responsibility for
calculating the overall revenue
requirement and recommending fees
and the fee bracket structure.4 The
Board then reviewed the analysis
conducted by the Revenue and Fees
4 The
membership of the Subcommittee is shown
in Appendix BB of the April 3 transmittal.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Subcommittee and selected the fees and
fee bracket structure that it
recommended to FMCSA.5
5 The FMCSA designated representative abstained
from the Board’s vote regarding the fee
recommendation to prevent any real or potential
conflict of interest due to his position within
FMCSA in reviewing the Board’s recommendation
and setting the fees under the statute.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
During the course of the
Subcommittee and Board consideration
of various proposals, industry
representatives on the Board 6 took the
position that they would not support
any recommendation that adjusted the
6 Under 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(B)(iii), five of the
fifteen members of the board are ‘‘from the motor
carrier industry.’’
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45587
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
fees beyond the amount necessary to
reflect the statutory amendment
changing the definition of commercial
motor vehicle for purposes of
calculating fleet size. Such a proposal,
which was presented, but not voted on,
at the Board’s February 12, 2009, public
meeting, is set out in the following
table:
TABLE 4—PROPOSED FEE AND FEE STRUCTURE FOR 2010 BASED ON REVISED DEFINITION OF CMV
Number of commercial motor vehicles owned or operated
by exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor private
carrier, or freight forwarder
Fee per entity
for exempt or
non-exempt
motor carrier,
motor private
carrier, or
freight
forwarder
Fee per entity
for broker or
leasing
company
0–1 .......................................................................................
2–5 .......................................................................................
6–20 .....................................................................................
21–100 .................................................................................
101–1,000 ............................................................................
1,001 and above ..................................................................
$61
122
366
1,281
6,163
61,081
$61
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Bracket
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
These two proposals in Tables 3 and
4 are similar with one major exception.
The Board’s recommendation (Table 3)
was premised on an assumption that
only 260,466 motor carrier entities
would register with the UCR Plan in
2010, out of the 433,535 motor carrier
entities that FMCSA and the Board
identified as active. The proposal
informally supported by industry
representatives (Table 4) assumed that
all 433,535 apparently active entities
will register in 2010. Because of the
similarity between these two proposals,
they can be discussed together for the
purpose of assessing their compliance
with the statutory requirements.
The discussion below of the
development of the population will
address the difference between the two
proposals. The methodology the Board
and FMCSA used to derive the 433,535
figure is discussed later in this section.
Table 4 is particularly significant in that
it sets the new ‘‘baseline’’ for the UCR
fee and fee structure based on the
statutory change amending the
definition of CMV which removed
trailers. Before discussing the
recommendation and various alternative
proposals, FMCSA will discuss the
elements common to each proposal.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Certification of State Revenues
The first step in certifying State
revenue entitlements is to establish the
participating jurisdictions for 2010.
Section 14504a(e)(1) of the statute
established a final deadline of August
10, 2008, for participation by the 51
States eligible to participate in the UCR
Plan and Agreement.7 Of the 38 States
that participated in SSRS in 2006, all
but two, California and North Carolina,
7 The District of Columbia, which is not
participating, is considered a State for this purpose
(49 U.S.C. 13102(21)).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
agreed to participate in the UCR in
registration year 2007. Of the thirteen
States that did not participate in SSRS,
only Oregon agreed to participate in the
UCR for registration year 2007.
Prior to the August 10, 2008, statutory
deadline, both California and North
Carolina, formerly States participating
in SSRS, joined the UCR Plan. Oregon
withdrew from participation and
Pennsylvania,8 Alaska and Delaware,
which had not participated in SSRS,
agreed to participate in the UCR for
registration year 2008 and subsequent
years. Therefore, there are now 41 States
participating and 10 States (including
the District of Columbia) not
participating.
To develop a nationwide figure for the
replacement revenues needed under the
UCR Agreement, the Board asked those
States that either had participated in
SSRS or had intrastate registration
revenues statutorily authorized to be
included in the total revenue amount to
provide information on the revenues
they received for the registration year
2004. This was the year specified in the
statute for establishing the amount of
revenues they were entitled to receive
under the UCR Agreement. The total
certified State revenue figure for UCR
for 2010 is $106,777,060. (See Table 5
which is based on Exhibit D to the
Board’s recommendation.)
SAFETEA–LU caps the maximum
revenue figure for other UCR States that
did not participate in SSRS at $500,000
per year (49 U.S.C. 14504a(g)(3)).
Because two such non-SSRS States have
agreed to participate in the UCR for
registration year 2010 (Alaska and
8 Pennsylvania did not participate in SSRS;
however, the statute permits it to collect revenues
generated under the UCR Agreement in an amount
equivalent to the amount it collected in intrastate
registration fees from interstate motor carriers in
2004. 49 U.S.C. 14504a(g)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Delaware), the Board added $1,000,000
to the total entitlement figure, bringing
the total State revenue requirement for
2010 to $107,777,060.
The Board’s calculation of the total
revenue for 2010 was properly based
upon the revenues collected by the
participating States (both under SSRS
and for intrastate registration of
interstate carriers) for the calendar year
2004. These State revenue entitlements
are unchanged from the entitlements for
2008 and 2009, which were previously
approved by FMCSA orders. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(g)(4),
FMCSA proposes to approve the amount
of revenue under the UCR Agreement to
which each State participating in 2010
is entitled, as specified in Table 5.
TABLE 5—STATE UCR REVENUE
ENTITLEMENTS
State
Alabama ..........................
Arkansas .........................
California .........................
Colorado .........................
Connecticut .....................
Georgia ...........................
Idaho ...............................
Illinois ..............................
Indiana ............................
Iowa ................................
Kansas ............................
Kentucky .........................
Louisiana ........................
Maine ..............................
Massachusetts ................
Michigan .........................
Minnesota .......................
Missouri ..........................
Mississippi ......................
Montana ..........................
Nebraska ........................
New Hampshire ..............
New Mexico ....................
New York ........................
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Total 2010 UCR
revenue
entitlements
$2,939,964.00
1,817,360.00
2,131,710.00
1,801,615.00
3,129,840.00
2,660,060.00
547,696.68
3,516,993.00
2,364,879.00
474,742.00
4,344,290.00
5,365,980.00
4,063,836.00
1,555,672.00
2,282,887.00
7,520,717.00
1,137,132.30
2,342,000.00
4,322,100.00
1,049,063.00
741,974.00
2,273,299.00
3,292,233.00
4,414,538.00
45588
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the Board also included a reserve in its
revenue target recommendation to
FMCSA an additional amount of
$563,885, equal to one-half of one
Total 2010 UCR
Total 2010 UCR
State
revenue
revenue
percent of the State revenue total and
entitlements
entitlements
administrative expenses. This
calculation methodology is consistent
Total State Revenue
372,007.00
Entitlement ...........
107,777,060 with the 2007 final rule. This brings the
2,010,434.00
overall UCR entitlement to
4,813,877.74
$113,340,945.
2,457,796.00 2. Administrative Costs
4,945,527.00
4. Carrier Population
Under section 14504a(d)(7) of the
TABLE 5—STATE UCR REVENUE
ENTITLEMENTS—Continued
State
North Carolina ................
North Dakota ..................
Ohio ................................
Oklahoma .......................
Pennsylvania ..................
Rhode Island ..................
South Carolina ................
South Dakota ..................
Tennessee ......................
Texas ..............................
Utah ................................
Virginia ............................
Washington .....................
West Virginia ..................
Wisconsin .......................
Sub-Total .................
Alaska .............................
Delaware .........................
TABLE 5—STATE UCR REVENUE
ENTITLEMENTS—Continued
2,285,486.00
2,420,120.00
855,623.00
4,759,329.00
2,718,628.06
2,098,408.00
4,852,865.00
2,467,971.00
1,431,727.03
2,196,680.00
106,777,059.81
500,000
500,000
statute, the costs incurred by the Board
to administer the UCR Agreement are
eligible for inclusion in the total
revenue to be collected. The Board
continues to estimate $5,000,000 for
2010 administrative expenses, and
included that amount in the revenue
target.
3. Revenue Target
In addition to the 2010 State revenue
target ($107,777,060) and the
administrative expenses ($5,000,000),
The Board’s recommendation is based
on a method for determining the carrier
population that is different from the one
used in 2007. In 2007, the Board
assumed that revenues would be
generated ‘‘from all motor carrier
entities involved in interstate
commerce.’’ Each of the five categories
of motor carrier entities is defined by
statute (in some cases with
modifications or additions found in
section 14504a) as shown in Table 6
below.
TABLE 6—CATEGORIES OF MOTOR CARRIER ENTITIES
Category
Definition in 49 U.S.C.
Motor Carrier .......................................................
Motor Private Carrier ..........................................
Freight Forwarder ...............................................
13102(14) and 14504a(a)(5).
13102(15).
13102(8) [Freight forwarders that operate motor vehicles are treated as motor carriers.
13903(b) and 14504a(b)].
13102(2).
14504a(a)(4).
Broker .................................................................
Leasing Company ...............................................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
To estimate the number of 2007 UCR
entities, the Board (using the SafetyNet
system) filtered data from the FMCSA
Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS) to capture carriers that
had updated their MCS–150 census
file 9, had an inspection, crash, safety
audit, or compliance review recorded
within the past 12 months (March 1,
2006, through February 26, 2007).
Applying this criteria (or filter) to
identify recent activity to approximately
730,000 carriers listed in the database,
the Board filtered out almost 380,000
carriers, leaving an estimated total
number of active interstate carriers of
350,698. The Board then considered
freight forwarders and brokers listed in
the FMCSA Licensing and Insurance
(L&I) System. The number, as provided
by FMCSA, was approximately 19,000.
After freight forwarders that also operate
CMVs were excluded to avoid double
counting, the Board estimated the total
number of freight forwarders and
brokers as 14,575. Summing the 350,698
active interstate carriers and 14,575
freight forwarders and brokers, the
Board arrived at a total affected
population of 365,273.
To establish its carrier population
estimate for 2010, the Board began with
the MCMIS database for February 4,
2009, and applied the same filters used
in 2007 with the minor change of
extending the activity period to 15
months. The Board also included in the
set of filters whether the carrier had
registered under UCR. In addition, the
Board took L&I data on September 10,
2008, and, as before, filtered it to avoid
9 Pursuant to 49 CFR 390.19 Motor carrier
identification report, a motor carrier must file its
update of the MC–150 form every 24 months.
10 See figures 13 and 14 as shown on page 8 of
the April 3, transmittal.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
double counting. For 2010, this process
yielded an estimate of 433,535 for the
full universe of carriers, brokers and
freight forwarders.
The Board then adjusted the
estimated full universe by the
percentage of entities that had actually
registered in each of the six brackets
specified in the fee structure, compared
to the number of entities that the Board
had determined were potential
registrants in each bracket. This
approach yielded a total estimated
population of 260,466 carriers, brokers
and freight forwarders, as illustrated by
the following table. This table contains
the information in Figures 13 and 14 10
from the Board’s recommendation and
provides the percentages used by the
Board to adjust its population estimates.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
45589
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BOARD POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 2010
2008 Full
universe
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
2008
Registered
2008
Percent (%)
registered
2010 Full
universe
2010
Population
(A)
Bracket
(B)
(C) = B/A
(D)
(E) = D x C
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
Brokers & Freight Forwarders ......
0–1 ................................................
2–5 ................................................
6–20 ..............................................
21–100 ..........................................
101–1,000 .....................................
1,001–More ...................................
16,457
202,415
89,773
85,015
30,716
8,118
785
2,630
116,163
56,489
57,946
23,566
6,800
690
16.0
57.4
62.9
68.2
76.7
83.8
87.9
16,457
194,425
145,266
65,155
17,350
3,590
292
2,630
111,578
91,408
38,275
13,311
3,007
257
Totals .....................................
.......................................................
433,279
264,284
....................
433,535
260,466
The Board’s position in adopting this
approach was that it was unreasonable
to expect the States to register and
collect fees from all potential
registrants. Based on the historical
registration experience, the Board also
believed that this approach increased
the likelihood of collecting the target
revenues, although the approach was
potentially vulnerable to undercollection if carriers registered in
brackets different from those to which
they would be expected to belong to,
based on MCMIS. Industry
representatives voiced concern over this
approach, contending it benefited
potential registrants who had been and
continued to be noncompliant, while it
increased the burden on compliant
registrants.
5. Number of Fee Brackets
The Board recommended the same
number of brackets for 2010 that it had
recommended in 2007. The Board
decided to use the maximum number of
brackets allowed by statute, thereby
reducing the range of fleet sizes within
individual brackets. The Board revised
the first bracket for 2010 from 0–2 to
0–1, to reflect the elimination of towed
units (trailers) and similarly, the second
bracket was changed from 3–5 to 2–5.
The Board retained brackets 3 through
6 as they had been established in 2007.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Fee Levels for Each Bracket
As discussed above under Section
IV.A.3. Revenue Target, the Board’s
target revenue figure with
administrative costs and reserve for
2010 is $113,340,945. To determine how
to allocate the total entitlement figure of
$113,340,945 across the six brackets, the
Board used a model that calculated (1)
the number of entities in each bracket;
(2) the revenues generated by each
bracket at different fee amounts; (3) total
revenues; and (4) any surplus or deficit
from the $113,340,945 target figure. The
Board also considered fairness in terms
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
of fees per motor vehicle while
assigning the fees for each bracket. This
model is consistent with the one used
in 2007, it ensures that the maximum
fee per commercial motor vehicle in any
given bracket would be no higher than
the maximum fee per commercial motor
vehicle in the next smaller bracket. The
fees recommended by the Board range
from a low of $83 for carriers in the
lowest bracket (0 to 1 CMVs) to a high
of $82,983 (the 1001-or-greater CMVs
bracket). (See Table 3.) The Board
estimated that this fee structure would
generate $113,338,310 in revenues. This
amount is slightly below the target
figure, with a projected deficit of $2,635
for the UCR registration year 2010.11
B. The FMCSA Analysis
FMCSA’s primary issues with the
April 3 Board recommendation involve:
(1) The need to recognize the revenue
shortfalls caused by ‘‘bracket shifting,’’
i.e., motor carriers registering in a fee
bracket that is different from that
reflected in MCMIS and (2) the number
of motor carrier entities that could be
expected to comply with the statute and
register and the related issue of the
States’ level of enforcement.
1. Bracket Shifting
The UCR registration fees and fee
brackets have been based on the
assumption that motor carrier entities
subject to UCR registration requirements
will pay fees based on the number of
vehicles (fleet size) reported in the
motor carrier identification report (Form
MCS–150). Under 49 CFR 390.19, this
report is required to be filed with
FMCSA and updated at least biennially.
However, experience over three years
has shown that a significant proportion
of motor carriers are paying fees based
on fleet sizes that are different than
what would be expected from the fleet
11 A deficit arises when rounding is not applied
to the fees, otherwise the total revenue equals
$113,354,360, which leads to a surplus of $13,415.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sizes reported to FMCSA. Empirical
analyses prepared by or on behalf of a
member of the Board have shown that
the overall net effect of this bracket
shifting by registering motor carriers has
been a significant reduction in expected
revenue (25.04 percent in 2008). Bracket
shifting, which can be appropriate
under the statute, occurs because
available data sources used to develop
the UCR fees and fee structures do not
always accurately predict actual
registrations.
On Form MCS–150, motor carriers are
required to report separately the number
of self-propelled vehicles (i.e., power
units) of various types and the number
of towed vehicles (i.e., trailers), if any,
that are owned or leased by the carrier,
and then total ‘‘the number of each type
of CMV that [it] uses in its U.S.
operations.’’ See instructions for item
26, Form MCS–150 at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/forms/
r-l/MCS-150-Instructions-and-Form.pdf.
That information is compiled in
MCMIS. The data, including the number
of self-propelled and towed CMVs
operated by motor carriers, was and is
made available to the Board to enable it
to develop its fees and fee bracket
structure. The fees for the registration
years 2007, 2008 and 2009 were
developed by the Board on the
assumption that each motor carrier that
registered would pay a fee according to
the bracket that is indicated by the
number of vehicles owned and operated
(both self-propelled and towed) reported
in the MCMIS database. For 2010,
because of the change in the applicable
definition for CMV, the fleet sizes and
applicable fees will be determined only
by the number of self-propelled CMVs.
There are several ways that a motor
carrier entity can determine its fleet
size. Fees charged to a registering motor
carrier or freight forwarder ‘‘shall be
based on the number of commercial
motor vehicles owned or operated
* * *’’ (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(A)(i)). A
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45590
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
CMV is ‘‘owned or operated’’ by the
motor carrier or freight forwarder if,
during the registration year, it is either
registered under Federal or State law (or
both) or controlled under a ‘‘long term
lease’’ (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(2)). The UCR
Plan has determined that a lease of a
CMV must be for more than 30 days to
be considered a long term lease. See
https://www.ucr.in.gov/MCS/
2009%20UCR%20Instruction%20
Sheet.doc. However, FMCSA requires
that all leased vehicles, long term or
otherwise, be reported on the MCS–150.
A registering motor carrier or freight
forwarder then has the option of basing
the number of CMVs owned or operated
on either (1) the number reported on its
most recently filed MCS–150; or (2) the
total number owned or operated for the
12-month period ending on June 30 of
the year preceding the registration year
(49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3)). This number is
determined, for either option, after
excluding leased vehicles that are under
lease terms of 30 days or less. https://
www.ucr.in.gov/MCS/
2009%20UCR%20Instruction%
20Sheet.doc. A motor carrier may
include in its calculation of fleet size
‘‘any commercial motor vehicle’’ (49
U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3)) and ‘‘any selfpropelled vehicle used on the highway
in commerce to transport passengers or
property for compensation regardless of
the gross vehicle weight rating of the
vehicle or the number of passengers
transported by such vehicle’’ (49 U.S.C.
14504a(a)(1)(B)). On the other hand,
motor carriers and motor private carriers
may elect not to include any CMV used
‘‘exclusively in the intrastate
transportation of property, waste, or
recyclable material’’ (49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(3)).
Tables 8 and 9 below show the effect
of bracket shifting in 2008. Table 8
shows the fee brackets that motor
carriers selected when registering under
the UCR Plan for 2008 and compares
that to the brackets in which the carriers
would have registered if the fleet size
used was derived from MCMIS. Table 9
shows the revenue impacts of the
brackets shifting in Table 8. A board
member presented these tables to the
Board during public meetings in June
and July, 2009, and the tables have been
placed in the docket.
TABLE 8—2008 UCR REGISTRATION
Paid bracket
MCMIS Bracket
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
107,277
18,732
6,132
1,092
253
45
7,109
33,518
10,390
1,026
112
4
1,617
4,002
40,086
5,968
429
19
94
108
1,191
15,264
1,714
50
6
5
18
174
4,265
182
0
0
2
0
21
388
116,103
56,365
57,819
23,524
6,794
688
Totals ....................
133,531
52,159
52,121
18,421
4,650
411
261,293
Fees paid ..............
$5,207,709
$6,050,444
$12,039,951
$14,847,326
$17,856,000
$15,412,500
$71,413,930
TABLE 9—REVENUE IMPACT 2008
Paid bracket
MCMIS Bracket
1
3
4
5
6
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
........................
$1,442,364
1,177,344
837,564
961,653
1,685,745
$(547,393)
..........................
1,194,850
707,940
417,088
149,536
$(310,464)
(460,230)
..........................
3,431,600
1,548,261
708,111
$(72,098)
(74,520)
(684,825)
..........................
5,200,276
1,834,700
$(22,806)
(18,620)
(64,962)
(527,916)
..........................
6,126,120
..........................
..........................
$(74,538)
..........................
(706,860)
..........................
$(952,761)
888,994
1,547,869
4,449,188
7,420,418
10,504,212
Revenue
change ...
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
Totals
6,104,670
1,922,021
4,917,278
6,203,533
5,491,816
(781,398)
23,857,920
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate a positive revenue impact whereas numbers not in parentheses indicate a negative revenue impact.
For example, of the 261,293 total
number of carriers registered for 2008
(as of the date of the analysis in the
above tables), 116,103 appeared to have
fleet sizes from the MCMIS data that
indicated that they should have
registered in the lowest UCR fee bracket.
However, almost 9,000 of those carriers
registered in a higher bracket, for a net
revenue gain of almost $1 million. On
the other hand, 26,254 carriers
registered in the lowest bracket (MCMIS
Bracket 2–6, under Paid Bracket 1)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
although the MCMIS data indicated that
they should be registered in a bracket
with a higher fee. The net result was a
revenue yield that was over $6.1 million
less than expected. Similar patterns
appear in the other brackets—some
carriers are registering in higher
brackets than expected—but significant
numbers of carriers registered in lower
brackets. For registration year 2008, as
Table 9 shows, the net reduction in the
expected revenue caused by bracket
shifting was $23,857,920. This
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
represented about a 25.04 percent
shortfall in the expected revenues for
2008.
This amount was a substantial portion
of the total revenue shortfall of
$31,159,905 experienced by the UCR
Plan for registration year 2008.
Shortfalls in 2007 and 2009 were
apparently due to a similar
phenomenon. In order to fulfill the
statutory objective of ensuring that the
revenues derived from the fees are
sufficient to provide the revenues to
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
which the participating States are
entitled (see 49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(1)(E)(i)), it appears to FMCSA
that an adjustment needs to be applied
to the current fees to recognize the
occurrence of bracket shifting.
2. Compliance and Enforcement
Another factor affecting the revenues
derived from the UCR registration fees
is the difficulty that participating States
have in registering all of the motor
carrier entities that appear in the
FMCSA MCMIS database. Filtering that
data in order to identify activity, the
Board and FMCSA based the initial fees
established in 2007 on the expectation
that 365,273 motor carrier entities were
active and would register (Fees for
Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement NPRM, 72 FR 29472, 29475,
May 29, 2007). In the April 3
submission, the Board developed an
estimated total of 433,535 entities that
would be active in 2010 by updating its
activity indicia. However, the formal
recommendation posited that only
260,466 of those entities would register
for 2010, a relatively low level of
compliance. The proposal supported by
the motor carrier industry
representatives, on the other hand,
posited that all 433,535 of these entities
would register for 2010, even though
during the past three years the UCR Plan
has never achieved 100 percent
compliance. See Table 2.
The reason for and solutions to this
level of compliance is a matter of
significant disagreement between the
States and industry representatives on
the Board. States have taken the
position that low compliance is due to
limitations in the MCMIS data that
prevent identification of the appropriate
active population, combined with
industry reluctance to register. Industry
representatives have taken the position
that insufficient State enforcement
activities are to blame.
FMCSA believes that, though no
realistic level of enforcement would
lead to 100 percent compliance,
increased enforcement efforts on the
part of the participating States will be
able to increase compliance rates to a
significant degree. FMCSA requests
public comment on the reasons for the
low level of compliance. FMCSA also
requests public comment on potential
solutions to determining the
reasonableness of the compliance and
enforcement efforts by the States,
including how they would support a
reasonable adjustment in the current
fees.
3. The Board’s Response to FMCSA
Concerns: Alternative Proposals
In response to FMCSA concerns
regarding the April 3 fee
recommendation, the Board’s Revenue
and Fee Subcommittee considered two
alternative fee proposals taking into
account FMCSA’s principal areas of
concern: Appropriate population
definition, compliance rates, and
bracket shifting. These proposals relied
upon a carrier population of 433,535,
and used the current bracket structure.
Both proposals included a compliance
factor, which indicated that it would be
45591
reasonable to expect 90 percent of motor
carrier entities in the participating
States to register, and 80 percent of the
entities in non-participating States to
register. This factor has been named the
Registration Percentage Reasonableness,
or RPR Factor.
The ten non-participating
jurisdictions receive no revenues from
the UCR Plan, and thus have little
motivation to devote resources to
enforcement of the UCR registration.
Entities from those States engaged in
interstate transportation activities can
only be subject to possible enforcement
if they conduct operations in a
participating State. Data reviewed by
FMCSA indicates that only about 40
percent of motor carrier entities in nonparticipating States are registering with
the UCR Plan.
The first alternative proposal (Table
10) assumed that the historical trend of
revenue shortfall caused by bracket
shifting would continue in 2010 at the
2008 rate. The second proposal (Table
11) assumed that the bracket shifting
rate for 2010 would be about half of the
2008 rate. This assumption was based
on the fact that, under the new
definition of CMV, 2010 fleet sizes are
estimated to approximate one-half of the
prior years’ fleet sizes. The development
of these proposals was set out in the
presentation made to the Board on July
9, 2009, which has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Applying these adjustments produced
fees shown in the following two tables:
TABLE 10—ALTERNATIVE FEE PROPOSAL FOR 2010 (NO. 1)
Number of commercial motor vehicles owned or operated
by exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor private
carrier, or freight forwarder
Fee per entity
for exempt or
non-exempt
motor carrier,
motor private
carrier, or
freight
forwarder
Fee per entity
for broker or
leasing
company
0–2 .......................................................................................
3–5 .......................................................................................
6–20 .....................................................................................
21–100 .................................................................................
101–1,000 ............................................................................
1,001 and above ..................................................................
$99
295
587
2,047
9,754
95,250
$99
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Bracket
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45592
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 11—ALTERNATIVE FEE PROPOSAL FOR 2010 (NO. 2)
Number of commercial motor vehicles owned or operated
by exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor private
carrier, or freight forwarder
Fee per entity
for exempt or
non-exempt
motor carrier,
motor private
carrier, or
freight
forwarder
Fee per entity
for broker or
leasing
company
0–2 .......................................................................................
3–5 .......................................................................................
6–20 .....................................................................................
21–100 .................................................................................
101–1,000 ............................................................................
1,001 and above ..................................................................
$83
246
490
1,709
8,141
79,500
$83
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Bracket
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
The FMCSA fee proposal described
below in Section V is derived from the
fee and fee bracket structure set forth in
Table 10.
V. The FMCSA Fee Proposal
FMCSA and the Board are required to
consider the factors established by
statute and laid out in detail in Section
II, Statutory Requirements for UCR Fees,
above. In addition, FMCSA is required
to base its fee determination on the
Board’s recommendation. This
requirement does not, however, obligate
FMCSA to adopt the Board’s
recommendation without modification.
To the contrary, FMCSA has an
independent responsibility to ensure
that any fees it sets meet the statutory
requirements set forth at 49 U.S.C.
14504a.
In discharging its statutory duty,
FMCSA carefully examined the Board’s
entire fee recommendation, including
the methodology and specific findings
of the Board. FMCSA also
independently considered the factors
specified in SAFETEA–LU, and utilized
data and analysis provided by the Board
in its fee recommendation, as well as
data from other sources. FMCSA does
not propose to set the fee contained in
the Board’s April 3 recommendation
because FMCSA believes that it does not
meet the statutory requirements.
FMCSA has developed a proposal based
on the alternative proposal shown in
Table 10, above.
A. Adjustment for Change in CMV
Definition
The alternative proposals started with
the revenue requirement, calculated (as
described above) to be $113,340,945,
and then estimated the maximum
revenue that would be collected, taking
into account the change to the definition
of CMV that includes power units only.
Table 12, below, shows this calculation
for a population close to, but not exactly
the same as, the full population.
Multiplying the number of motor carrier
entities in each bracket by the fees per
entity yields the total revenues for each
bracket, as shown in the third column
from the left. Summing across all six
brackets yields the maximum total
revenue that could be collected in 2010
(assuming full compliance and no
bracket shifting). This amount would be
just over $70 million, well short of the
$113 million revenue requirement.
The elimination of trailers from the
definition of CMV reduces many
carriers’ fleet sizes, causing some of
them to drop into a lower bracket and,
consequently pay less. Thus, even with
full compliance and no bracket shift,
existing fees would be inadequate and
would have to be increased to meet each
State’s revenue requirement.
According to the alternative
proposals, increasing each fee by a
factor of 1.617905 would raise revenues
to $113 million after the change in the
CMV definition, all other things being
unchanged. This adjustment is shown in
the final two columns on the right—the
fees have been increased by a factor of
almost 1.618, and the totals for the
brackets are shown to total the $113
million revenue requirement.
TABLE 12—DERIVATION OF FEES NEEDED TO GENERATE THE FULL REVENUE REQUIREMENT WITH 100% COMPLIANCE
AND NO BRACKET SHIFT
Bracket
Current fee
Carriers
Revenue
Current fees
times 1.618
Revenue
$39
116
231
806
3,840
37,500
267,144
76,499
56,321
17,260
3,513
276
$10,418,616
8,873,884
13,010,151
13,911,560
13,489,920
10,350,000
$63
188
374
1,304
6,213
60,671
$16,830,072
14,381,812
21,064,054
22,507,040
21,826,269
16,745,196
Total ..........................................................................................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
0–2 ...................................................................................................
3–5 ...................................................................................................
6–20 .................................................................................................
21–100 .............................................................................................
101–1000 .........................................................................................
1001+ ...............................................................................................
....................
421,013
70,054,131
....................
113,354,443
Because these calculations exclude
any consideration of the effect of either
compliance or bracket shift, they show
an unrealistically high collection of
revenue. The fees would have to be set
higher in order to overcome these
additional factors affecting overall
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
revenue. However, it is also clear, as
even the motor carrier industry interests
recognize, that an increase of more than
61 percent is necessary just to account
for the statutory change.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Registration Percentage
Reasonableness (RPR) Factor
In response to FMCSA concern that
the Board’s recommendation did not
take into account improved enforcement
activities, the alternative proposals
included a goal of 90 percent
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45593
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
compliance by motor carrier entities
based in participating States. For
entities in the non-participating States,
however, the alternative proposals did
not consider a compliance target of 90
percent to be feasible. Because those
States do not receive revenues through
the UCR system, they do not have the
incentive to exert effort on enforcement;
and compliance rates could well remain
low. For this reason, the alternative
proposals used a lower goal of 80
percent compliance for registration by
entities in the non-participating States.
While FMCSA acknowledges that 100
percent compliance may not be feasible,
it agrees with the concept of setting fees
based on an assumption of significantly
improved compliance and enforcement
activities. This concept represents a
reasonable compromise between
fairness to compliant carriers, giving
incentives to States to improve
enforcement, and maximizing the
chance of meeting the States’ revenue
requirements.
FMCSA, however, believes that the
compliance target included in the
alternative proposals for carriers in nonparticipating States is unrealistically
high in light of the limited leverage that
the participating States have over
enforcement beyond their borders.
Recent data compiled by FMCSA shows
compliance rates of approximately 40
percent among carriers based in nonparticipating States. FMCSA considers a
target of 59 percent in non-participating
States to be more reasonable. FMCSA
believes that if participating States
improve their roadside enforcement
activities, they will be able to capture
potential registrants from nonparticipating States when they cross
borders into participating States. Based
on data provided by the Board, FMCSA
has determined that currently, only 28
of the 41 participating States, or just
over two-thirds, actively engage in
roadside enforcement. If all 41
participating States actively conducted
roadside UCR enforcement at the same
level conducted by the 28 participating
States, FMCSA believes that such
increased use of this enforcement tool
would improve compliance rates among
carriers from the non-participating
States. FMCSA estimates that the
current 40 percent compliance rate by
carriers in non-participating States
might reasonably be expected to
improve to (41/28) * 40 percent, or 59
percent.
As shown in Table 13, the alternative
proposals combined the assumptions of
90 and 80 percent compliance in
participating and non-participating
States respectively, to generate a
weighted average projected compliance
rate of 88.85 percent. This table also
shows the effects of FMCSA’s adjusted
compliance rate of 59 percent in the
non-participating States. The FMCSA
proposal produces a weighted average
projected compliance rate of 86.42
percent.
TABLE 13—REGISTRATION PERCENTAGE REASONABLENESS (RPR) FACTOR
Approximate
recent
population
Board’s
estimated
RPR
Board’s
projected
registrations
FMCSA’s
estimated
RPR
FMCSA’s
projected
registrations
Participating States ..............................................................
Non-Participating States ......................................................
383,000
50,000
90%
80%
344,700
40,000
90%
59%
344,700
29,500
Total ..............................................................................
433,000
88.85%
384,700
86.42%
374,200
C. Shortfall Adjustment Factor
Factoring in both the change in
definition of CMV and the RPR, the first
alternative proposal calculated the
maximum revenue to be only 88.85
percent of $70,054,131, or $62,239,770,
a loss of $7,814,351 and considerably
less than the $113,340,945 revenue
requirement. The effect of bracket shift,
calculated at its 2008 rate, would be to
reduce the maximum $70,054,131
revenue by 25.04 percent for a loss of
$17,541,552. Subtracting both the RPR
and bracket shift factors from the
maximum anticipated revenue of
$70,054,131 yields a reduced maximum
anticipated revenue totaling
$44,698,218.
To determine an appropriate fee
increase that would remedy the
shortfall, the alternative proposal then
divided the maximum adjusted
anticipated revenue ($44,698,218) into
the revenue requirement ($113,340,945).
This produced a shortfall adjustment
factor of about 2.54. Multiplying this
factor by the current fees for each
bracket yielded a set of fees with a
maximum of $99 per CMV.
TABLE 14—DERIVATION OF FEE FOR ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
Bracket
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
The second alternative proposal
included the same analysis set forth
above, but with a 12.52 percent bracket
shift factor (instead of 25.04 percent).
This was based on the assumption that
the bracket shifting rate for 2010 would
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Current
fee
Number of CMVs
0–2 .......................................................................................
3–5 .......................................................................................
6–20 .....................................................................................
21–100 .................................................................................
101–1,000 ............................................................................
1,001 and above ..................................................................
be about half of the 2008 rate. This
assumption was based on the fact that,
under the new definition of CMV, 2010
fleet sizes are estimated to be
approximately one-half of the prior
years’ fleet sizes, leaving out trailers and
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$39
116
231
806
3,840
37,500
Current
fee times
2.54
$99
295
587
2,047
9,754
95,250
the data uncertainties associated with
them. However, FMCSA does not
believe that the Subcommittee provided
convincing support or justification for
this assumption.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45594
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
D. FMCSA Adjustments
FMCSA agrees with the basic
principles of this alternative fee
proposal, but makes several
adjustments. First, as discussed in
Section V.B., above, the Agency’s
proposal adjusts the RPR factor and
resulting compliance rate slightly—from
88.85 percent to 86.42 percent—to
reflect the difficulty of increasing
compliance in non-participating States.
Second, the Agency’s proposal is
based on a reconsideration of the effects
of increasing the compliance rate. The
alternative proposal’s calculations
assume that registering 88.85 percent of
carriers would mean bringing in 88.85
percent of revenue. However,
compliance rates measured as a
percentage of carriers will not be
directly proportional to revenues. This
is because carriers with different fleet
sizes pay different fees, and compliance
rates vary by carrier size. As shown
below, increasing revenue collection to
88.85 percent of the maximum available
revenue would represent only a small
increase from existing levels and would
not reflect the effect that projected
increased compliance levels of 80 or 90
percent of carriers would have on
revenue. To address this issue, FMCSA
developed a proposal that calculates the
effect of increased registration rates on
revenue collection.
The FMCSA proposal starts by
estimating the total revenue that the
existing UCR fee structure would bring
in if there were (1) 100 percent
participation using the 2010 carrier
population; (2) no change in the
definition of CMVs; and (3) no bracket
shift. This estimate is made by
multiplying the current fee for each
bracket by the total number of active
carriers in the MCMIS data base falling
into that bracket, based on the previous
CMV definition (which included both
power units and trailers). Freight
forwarders and brokers are included in
the first bracket. Summing the products
across all six brackets yields
$123,964,113 in revenue, as shown in
Table 15.
TABLE 15—CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM REVENUE AT EXISTING FEES
Active
carriers
(MCMIS)*
Bracket
Current fee
per entity
Maximum
revenue
by bracket
1** ........................................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................................
6 ...........................................................................................................................................................
218,829
89,773
85,058
30,716
8,118
785
$39
116
231
806
3,840
37,500
8,534,331
10,413,668
19,648,398
24,757,096
31,173,120
29,437,500
Total ..............................................................................................................................................
433,279
....................
123,964,113
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Population scaled down from 433,322 to the 2008 estimate of 433,279.
** Includes brokers and freight forwarders.
This amount represents the most that
the UCR Plan could generate if no
changes were made to the existing fees.
(Note that this total is greater than the
revenue target of $113,340,945, because
the bracket and fee structure was
originally developed assuming a
somewhat smaller active population.)
Starting with this maximum revenue
($123,964,113), FMCSA then estimated
the effects of bracket shifting. Assuming
that bracket shifting reduces revenue
collection across the spectrum by the
same 25.04 percent calculated for
registered carriers, FMCSA found that
the maximum revenue would be
$123,964,113 * (100 percent¥25.04
percent), which is $92,923,499. The
actual amount of revenue collected in
2008 was $76,617,155, which is about
82.5 percent of the adjusted maximum
revenue after bracket shifting is taken
into account. The difference between
these two amounts, $16,306,344, is the
estimated loss of revenue resulting from
non-compliance. FMCSA believes that
some portion of this lost revenue could
be recovered by increasing the
compliance rate.
The FMCSA proposal estimates the
amount that could be recovered by
comparing the current compliance rate
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
to the RPR developed for the alternative
proposals and modified by FMCSA. The
compliance in 2008 was 270,794
registrants out of a total population of
433,279, for a rate of 62.50 percent.
(Note that this rate is considerably lower
than the rate of revenue collection
which was 82.5 percent of the
maximum revenue available after the
effect of bracket shift. This difference is
due to the greater compliance rate of
larger entities, which raises revenue
collections disproportionately.) A
compliance rate of 62.50 percent leaves
37.50 percent noncompliance. Raising
the compliance rate to 86.42 percent
assumes that most of the current
noncompliant carriers would register.
The increase from 62.50 percent
compliance to 86.42 percent would
mean capturing 63.79 percent of all noncompliant carriers. (The increase in
compliance by 23.92 percentage points
out of the total of 37.50 percent
noncompliant carriers would mean that
the improvement in compliance would
represent 23.92/37.50 or 63.79 percent
of all noncompliant carriers.)
The next step in FMCSA’s approach
is to calculate how much of the
$16,306,344 in lost revenues would be
brought in by capturing 63.79 percent of
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the noncompliant carriers. This
calculation is difficult to perform
because FMCSA believes there is no
data available that can predict with
certainty the fleet sizes of the carriers
that would be brought in to reach the
RPR. Nonetheless, it is likely that, just
as with the carrier population as a
whole, the carriers that remain noncompliant despite increased
enforcement efforts would have
somewhat smaller fleet sizes. The new
registrants captured as a result of
increased enforcement efforts would
have larger fleet sizes. Therefore, the
percentage of currently uncollected
revenues that would continue to remain
uncollected even after enforcement
efforts are improved would be smaller
than the percentage of currently
unregistered carriers that would still
remain unregistered.
FMCSA does not know of any method
to estimate with certainty the extent of
this effect. However, it is reasonable to
assume that the relationship between
the percentage of uncollected revenues
and the percentage of unregistered
carriers after the increase in compliance
will be similar to the relationship
between the current percentage of
uncollected revenues and current
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
percentage of unregistered carriers.
Currently, (100 percent¥82.5 percent)
or 17.5 percent of revenues are not being
collected. The ratio of 17.5 percent in
uncollected revenues to the 37.5 percent
of carriers that are not registered is
0.468. As stated previously, with
improved compliance, FMCSA believes
that 63.79 percent of non-compliant
carriers can be registered, leaving only
36.21 percent non-compliant.
Multiplying 0.468 by 36.21 percent
yields 17.0 percent, which is FMCSA’s
estimate of the percentage of currently
uncollected revenues that will remain
uncollected even after compliance
improves (i.e., even after registering
63.79 percent of currently noncompliant
carriers). Thus, (100 percent¥17.0
percent) or 83.0 percent of the currently
uncollected revenues are assumed to be
recoverable when 63.79 percent of the
currently noncompliant carriers are
registered. Multiplying the $16,306,344
in currently uncollected revenues by
83.0 percent yields an increase of
$13,543,247.
This increase in revenue, added to the
$76,617,155 that was collected at
current compliance rates, would bring
collections to $90,160,402. However,
this estimate does not take into account
the change in the definition of CMV.
Eliminating trailers from the carriers’
fleet sizes caused many of them to drop
to lower brackets, where they pay lower
amounts. In the absence of a change in
fees, revenue would drop significantly.
FMCSA estimates the size of this drop
by comparing the maximum revenue
available from the existing population,
as recorded in MCMIS using the new
CMV definition, to the maximum
revenue available using the old
definition. Comparing the maximum
revenue derived using the new
definition of CMV and the 2010
population ($70,018,681) with the
maximum revenue derived using the old
definition ($123,964,113) produces a
ratio of 0.5648. Applying this factor to
45595
the figure we derived earlier by taking
into account the RPR and bracket
shifting ($90,160,402) results in
estimated revenues of only $50,925,322
if the current fees were not increased.
This revenue estimate, based on the
2008 population, would rise very
slightly to $50,955,411 after scaling up
by 433,535/433,279 to account for the
slightly larger 2010 population. In other
words, after factoring in the RPR and
bracket shifting, FMCSA estimates that
the Plan would only collect $50,955,411
if the fees are not adjusted.
This is far less than the revenue
amount the States are entitled to receive
by statute. Consequently, the FMCSA
proposal includes an adjustment factor
to remedy this shortfall. Dividing the
revenue target ($113,340,945) by the
estimated revenue based on current fees
($50,954,411) produces a shortfall
adjustment factor of 2.22432. Applying
this factor to the current fees yields
FMCSA’s proposed fee structure, as
shown in Table 16.
TABLE 16—DERIVATION OF FEE FOR FMCSA PROPOSAL
Bracket
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of CMVs
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
FMCSA believes that this proposal
meets the statutory objective of ensuring
that the fees are sufficient to provide the
revenues to which the participating
States are entitled. It is based on a
reasonable estimate of the number of
active motor carrier entities subject to
the UCR fees. It adjusts the fees to
reflect the statutory change in the
applicable definition of commercial
motor vehicle. It further adjusts the fees
to recognize the historical occurrence of
revenue shortfalls caused by bracket
shifting. Finally, it establishes
reasonable targets for compliance by the
motor carrier industry to encourage
enhanced enforcement efforts by the
participating States.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Regulatory Changes
In view of the foregoing, FMCSA is
proposing to revise 49 CFR part 367 in
several respects. First, current subpart
A, which contains regulations
implementing the provisions of nowrepealed 49 U.S.C. 14504, would be
removed in its entirety. Second, the
heading of 49 CFR 367.20 would be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
0–2 ...................................................................................
3–5 ...................................................................................
6–20 .................................................................................
21–100 .............................................................................
101–1,000 ........................................................................
1,001 and above ..............................................................
changed to specify that the fees
established would be applicable to
registration years 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Third, a new 49 U.S.C. 367.30 would
establish the fees applicable to
registration years beginning on January
1, 2010. A technical change is also being
proposed in the headings to the fee
tables to make clear that the fees are
applicable to all entities that are
required to register and pay fees to the
UCR Plan.
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has determined this proposed
rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action
within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated
May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February
26, 1979). The costs of this NPRM
would not exceed the $100 million
annual threshold as defined in
Executive Order 12866. This rule is not
PO 00000
Current fee
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$39
116
231
806
3,840
37,500
2009 fee
times
2.22432
$87
258
514
1,793
8,541
83,412
economically significant based on the
size of the additional fees to be collected
under the UCR. The costs of the rule are
required pursuant to an explicit
Congressional mandate in SAFETEA–
LU. Because a majority of the fees under
the proposed rule are already being
collected under the UCR system, the
total cost of the proposed rule will be
substantially less than $100 million per
year. A major intent of the proposed
rule is to eliminate the revenue
shortfalls that the UCR system has
experienced over the past several years;
that shortfall was $38 million in 2008,
for instance, and of similar magnitude
in 2007 and 2009. This increase, though,
will clearly be less than the $100
million threshold for a significant
impact on the economy. The Agency has
prepared a preliminary regulatory
analysis analyzing the rule. A copy of
the preliminary analysis document is
included in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45596
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness
Act (SBREFA), (5 U.S.C. 601–612),
requires Federal agencies to analyze the
impact of rulemakings on small entities,
unless the agency certifies the proposed
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. FMCSA has
determined that the fees being proposed
in this rule would affect large numbers
of small entities because the proposed
rule sets fees for hundreds of thousands
of carriers of all sizes, and small entities
are defined to include all entities that
are not dominant in their industries. In
previous rulemakings, FMCSA
identified for-hire carriers with fewer
than 145 power units (i.e., trucks or
tractors) as small. Thus, all of the forhire carriers in Brackets 1 through 4
would be considered small, as would
many of those in Bracket 5.
After careful consideration, however,
FMCSA has determined that, in every
case involving a viable small entity, the
recommended UCR fee will be well
below the threshold level of one percent
of revenues used for determining
significant impacts. This conclusion is
based on the observation that the
maximum fee per vehicle is $87, which
is less than one percent of the $14,500
annual salary of even a single employee
working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks
per year and earning the current Federal
minimum wage of $7.25.12 Because an
entity without sufficient revenues to pay
even one employee per vehicle would
not be viable, it is clear that the
recommended UCR fees will not reach
the threshold of one percent of
revenues. Thus, FMCSA certifies that
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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 $136.1 million or
more in any one year, must prepare a
12 The
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
establishes minimum wage, overtime pay,
recordkeeping, and youth employment standards
affecting employees in the private sector and in
Federal, State, and local governments. Covered
nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage
of not less than $7.25 per hour effective July 24,
2009. https://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
written statement incorporating various
assessments, estimates, and descriptions
that are delineated in the Act. FMCSA
has preliminarily determined that this
proposal would not have an impact of
$136.1 million or more in any one year.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed
action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. We have determined
preliminarily that this rulemaking
would not create an environmental risk
to health or safety that would
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This proposed rule would not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed rule has been analyzed
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. FMCSA has preliminarily
determined that this rulemaking would
not have a substantial direct effect on
States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing
in this proposal would preempt any
State law or regulation. As detailed
above, the UCR Board of Directors
includes substantial State
representation. The States have already
had notice of this action and
opportunity for input through their
representatives. FMCSA also requests
comments on any substantial direct
effect on the States as outlined in
Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities do not
apply to this program.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FMCSA
consider the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens
imposed on the public. We have
determined that there are no current
new information collection
requirements by FMCSA associated
with this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency analyzed this rule for the
purpose of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and determined under our
environmental procedures Order 5610.1,
issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that
this action is categorically excluded
(CE) under Appendix 2, paragraph 6.h
of the Order from further environmental
documentation. The CE under
Appendix 2, paragraph 6.h relates to
establishing regulations and actions
taken pursuant to the regulations
implementing procedures to collect fees
that will be charged for motor carrier
registrations and insurance.
We have also analyzed this rule under
the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA),
section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
and implementing regulations
promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Approval of this
action is exempt from the CAA’s
General Conformity requirement since it
involves policy development.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed
rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined preliminarily that it would
not be a ‘‘significant energy action’’
under that Executive Order because it
would not be likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 367
Commercial motor vehicle, Financial
responsibility, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Registration, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration proposes to
amend title 49 CFR chapter III,
subchapter B, part 367 as follows:
PART 367—STANDARDS FOR
REGISTRATION WITH STATES
1. Revise the authority citation for
part 367 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13301, 14504a; and 49
CFR 1.73.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
45597
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Subpart A—[Removed and Reserved]
2. Remove and reserve subpart A,
consisting of §§ 367.1 through 367.7 and
Appendix A to subpart A.
Subpart B—Fees Under the Unified
Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement
3. Amend subpart B by revising the
heading of § 367.20 to read as follows:
§ 367.20 Fees Under the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement for
Registration Years 2007, 2008 and 2009.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Add § 367.30 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 367.30 Fees under the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement for
Registration Years Beginning in 2010.
FEES UNDER THE UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR EACH REGISTRATION YEAR
Number of commercial motor vehicles owned
or operated by exempt or non-exempt motor
carrier, motor private carrier, or freight
forwarder
Bracket
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
Issued on: August 28, 2009.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–21232 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0907021105–91234–02]
RIN 0648–AY00
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 10
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
implement measures in Amendment 10
to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). Amendment 10 was
developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) to bring
the FMP into compliance with
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements
by establishing a rebuilding program
that allows the butterfish stock to
rebuild and permanently protects the
long-term health and stability of the
stock; and by minimizing bycatch and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:07 Sep 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Fee per entity for
exempt or non-exempt
motor carrier, motor
private carrier, or freight
forwarder
Fee per
entity for broker or
leasing company
$87
258
514
1,793
8,541
83,412
$87
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
0–2 .....................................................................
3–5 .....................................................................
6–20 ...................................................................
21–100 ...............................................................
101–1,000 ..........................................................
1,001 and above ...............................................
the fishing mortality of unavoidable
bycatch, to the extent practicable, in the
MSB fisheries. Amendment 10 would
increase the minimum codend mesh
size requirement for the Loligo squid
(Loligo) fishery; establish a butterfish
rebuilding program with a butterfish
mortality cap for the Loligo fishery;
establish a 72–hr trip notification
requirement for the Loligo fishery; and
require an annual assessment of the
butterfish rebuilding program by the
Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC). This proposed rule
would also make minor, technical
corrections to existing regulations.
DATES: Public comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on October 19, 2009.
ADDRESSES: A final supplemental
environmental impact statement (FSEIS)
was prepared for Amendment 10 that
describes the proposed action and other
considered alternatives and provides a
thorough analysis of the impacts of the
proposed measures and alternatives.
Copies of Amendment 10, including the
FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), and the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are
available from: Daniel Furlong,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Room
2115, Federal Building, 300 South New
Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. The
FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the
Internet at https://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
You may submit comments on this
proposed rule, identified by RIN 0648–
AY00, by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal e-Rulemaking portal https://
www.regulations.gov;
• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Carrie
Nordeen;
• Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul,
Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope
‘‘Comments on MSB Amendment 10.’’
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information
(e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the
required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF formats only.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office and to David
Rostker by e-mail
DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax
(202) 395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978–281–9272, fax 978–281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This amendment is needed to bring
the MSB FMP into compliance with
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45583-45597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21232]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 367
[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0231]
RIN 2126-AB19
Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish annual registration fees
and a fee bracket structure for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR)
Agreement for the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2010, as
required under the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005, enacted as
Subtitle C of Title IV of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, as amended.
DATES: You must submit comments on or before September 18, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number FMCSA-
2009-0231 and/or RIN 2126-AB19, by any of the following methods--
Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
Web site at https://www.regulations.gov. The FDMS is the preferred
method for submitting comments, and we urge you to use it. In the
``Comment'' or ``Submission'' section, type Docket ID Number ``FMCSA--
2009--0231'', select ``Go'', and then click on ``Send a Comment or
Submission.'' You will receive a tracking number when you submit a
comment.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Docket: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
background information and documents mentioned in this preamble, are
part of docket FMCSA-2009-0231, and are available for inspection and
copying on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may also
[[Page 45584]]
view and copy documents at the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Unit, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.
Privacy Act: All comments will be posted without change including
any personal information provided to the FDMS at https://www.regulations.gov. Anyone can search the electronic form of all our
dockets in FDMS, by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc). The Department of Transportation's (DOT)
complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can be viewed at https://docketsinfo.dot.gov. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be included in the docket, and we will consider late comments to
the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any
time after the close of the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Julie Otto, Office of Enforcement
and Program Delivery, (202) 366-0701, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by e-
mail at: FMCSAregs@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
II. Statutory Requirements for the UCR Fees
III. Background of UCR Fees 2007 to Present
IV. UCR Fee Proposals for Calendar Year 2010
A. The UCR Plan Recommendation
1. Certification of State Revenues
2. Administrative Costs
3. Revenue Target
4. Carrier Population
5. Number of Fee Brackets
6. Fee Levels for Each Bracket
B. The FMCSA Analysis
1. Bracket Shifting
2. Compliance and Enforcement
3. The Board's Response to FMCSA Concerns: Alternative Proposals
V. The FMCSA Fee Proposal
A. Adjustment for Change in CMV Definition
B. Registration Percentage Reasonableness (RPR) Factor
C. Shortfall Adjustment Factor
D. FMCSA Adjustments
VI. Regulatory Changes
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This proposed rule involves an adjustment in the annual
registration fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Agreement (UCR
Agreement) established by 49 U.S.C. 14504a, enacted by section 4305(b)
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (119 Stat. 1144, 1764 (2005)).
Section 14504a states that the ``Unified Carrier Registration Plan * *
* mean[s] the organization * * * responsible for developing,
implementing, and administering the unified carrier registration
agreement'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(9)) (UCR Plan). The UCR Agreement
developed by the UCR Plan is the ``interstate agreement governing the
collection and distribution of registration and financial
responsibility information provided and fees paid by motor carriers,
motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders and leasing
companies * * *.'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(8)).
Congress in SAFETEA-LU also repealed 49 U.S.C. 14504 governing the
Single State Registration System (SSRS) (SAFETEA-LU section
4305(a)).\1\ The legislative history indicates that the purpose of the
UCR Plan and Agreement is both to ``replace the existing outdated
system [SSRS]'' for registration of interstate motor carrier entities
with the States and to ``ensure that States don't lose current revenues
derived from SSRS'' (S. Rep. 109-120, at 2 (2005)).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This repeal became effective on January 1, 2008, in
accordance with section 4305(a) of SAFETEA-LU and section 1537(c) of
the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,
Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 467 (Aug. 3, 2007).
\2\ The Senate bill's provisions were enacted ``with
modifications.'' H. Conf. Rep. No. 109-203, at 1020 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute provides for a 15-member Board of Directors for the UCR
Plan and Agreement (Board) to be appointed by the Secretary of
Transportation. The statute specifies that the Board should consist of
one individual (either the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) Deputy Administrator or another Presidential appointee) from
the Department of Transportation; four directors (one from each of the
four FMCSA service areas), selected from among the chief administrative
officers of the State agencies responsible for administering the UCR
Agreement; five directors from among the professional staffs of State
agencies responsible for administering the UCR Agreement, to be
nominated by the National Conference of State Transportation
Specialists (NCSTS); and five directors representing the motor carrier
industry, of whom at least one must be from a national trade
association representing the general motor carrier of property industry
and one from a motor carrier that falls within the smallest fleet fee
bracket. The establishment of the Board was announced in the Federal
Register on May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27777). On July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39660),
FMCSA published a notice announcing the reappointment to the Board of
the five Board members from the State agencies nominated by NCSTS. On
June 30 2008, (73 FR 36956) FMCSA published a notice announcing the
reappointment of the members from the four FMCSA service areas to the
Board.
Among its responsibilities, the Board is required to submit to the
Secretary of Transportation \3\ a recommendation for the initial annual
fees to be assessed motor carriers, motor private carriers, freight
forwarders, brokers and leasing companies (49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A)).
FMCSA is directed to set the fees within 90 days after receiving the
Board's recommendation and after notice and opportunity for public
comment (49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(B)). Subsequent adjustment to the fees
and fee brackets must be adopted following the same timelines and
procedures of recommendation by the Board and review and adoption by
FMCSA after notice and an opportunity for public comment (Id). As
provided in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(B): ``The fees shall be determined
by [FMCSA] based upon the recommendations of the [UCR] Board * * *.''
The statute also directs both the Board and FMCSA to consider several
relevant factors in their respective roles of recommending and setting
the fees [49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A), (f)(1) and (g)]. Thus, FMCSA has
an obligation to consider independently the Board's recommendation in
light of the statutory requirements, and to make its own determination
of the appropriate fees and fee bracket structure, including modifying
the Board's recommendation, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Secretary's functions under section 14504a have been
delegated to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. 49 CFR 1.73(a)(7), as amended (71 FR 30833 May 31,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Statutory Requirements for the UCR Fees
The statute specifies that fees are to be determined by FMCSA based
upon the recommendation of the Board. In recommending the level of fees
to be assessed in any agreement year, and in setting the fee level,
both the Board and FMCSA shall consider the following factors:
1. Administrative costs associated with the UCR Plan and Agreement.
2. Whether the revenues generated in the previous year and any
surplus or shortage from that or prior years enable
[[Page 45585]]
the participating States to achieve the revenue levels set by the
Board.
3. Provisions governing fees in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1).
Subsection (f)(1) provides that the fees charged must satisfy the
following criteria:
Fees charged to a motor carrier, motor private carrier, or freight
forwarder under the UCR Agreement shall be based on the number of
commercial motor vehicles owned or operated by the motor carrier, motor
private carrier, or freight forwarder. The statute initially defined
``commercial motor vehicles'' (CMVs) for this purpose as including both
self-propelled and towed vehicles [former 49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(1)(A) and
31101(1)]. The fees set in 2007, and applied as well in 2008 and 2009,
were determined on that basis. However, section 701(d)(1)(A) of Public
Law 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4906 (Oct. 16, 2008) amended the
definition of CMV for the purpose of setting UCR fees for years
beginning after December 31, 2009, to mean a ``self-propelled vehicle
described in section 31101'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
Fees charged to a broker or leasing company under the UCR Agreement
shall be equal to the smallest fee charged to a motor carrier, motor
private carrier, and freight forwarder, or to the smallest fee charged
under the UCR Agreement.
Section 14504a(f)(1) also stipulates that for the purpose of
charging fees the Board shall develop no more than 6 and no fewer than
4 brackets of carriers (including motor private carriers) based on the
size of the fleet, i.e., the number of CMVs owned or operated. The fee
scale is required to be progressive in the amount of the fee. The
registration fees for the UCR Agreement may be adjusted within a
reasonable range on an annual basis if the revenues derived from the
fees are either insufficient to provide the participating States with
the revenues they are entitled to receive or exceed those revenues (49
U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)).
Overall, the fees assessed under the UCR Agreement must produce the
level of revenue established by statute. Section 14504a(g) establishes
the revenue entitlements for States that choose to participate in the
UCR Plan. That section provides that a participating State, which
participated in SSRS in the registration year prior to the enactment of
the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005 (i.e., the 2004
registration year), is entitled to receive revenues under the UCR
Agreement equivalent to the revenues it received in 2004. Participating
States that also collected intrastate registration fees from interstate
motor carrier entities (whether or not they participated in SSRS) are
also entitled to receive revenues of this type under the UCR Agreement,
in an amount equivalent to the amount received in the 2004 registration
year. The section also requires that States which did not participate
in SSRS in 2004, but which choose to participate in the UCR Plan, may
receive revenues not to exceed $500,000 per year.
III. Background of UCR Fees 2007 to Present
The initial UCR fees and fee structure was published by FMCSA on
August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48585), which allowed the Board to begin
collecting fees (49 U.S.C. 14504a). On February 1, 2008, the Board
submitted the 2008 recommendation to FMCSA indicating that it was ``too
early to ascertain whether the revenues collected in 2007 will equal or
approximate the total revenue'' to which the States are entitled. A
copy of this recommendation is provided in this docket. As a result, on
February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10157), FMCSA published correcting amendments
to the 2007 final rule, clarifying that the fees and fee structure were
established for every registration year unless (and until) the Board
recommended an adjustment to the annual fees (73 FR 10157). On July 11,
2008, the Board sent a letter to FMCSA stating that the fees would
remain the same as 2007. The Board stated that ``additional time to
register entities, check that carriers registered in the correct
bracket, and establish effective roadside enforcement'' would result in
better collection of revenue. A copy of this letter is provided in this
docket. The table below shows the fees and fee structure in place from
2007 to 2009.
Table 1--UCR Fees and Fee Structure 2007-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
for exempt or
Number of commercial motor non-exempt Fee per entity
vehicles owned or operated by motor carrier, for broker or
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor motor private leasing
carrier, motor private carrier, carrier, or company
or freight forwarder freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1............................................ 0-2............................. $39 $39
B2............................................ 3-5............................. 116 ..............
B3............................................ 6-20............................ 231 ..............
B4............................................ 21-100.......................... 806 ..............
B5............................................ 101-1,000....................... 3,840 ..............
B6............................................ 1,001 and above................. 37,500 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From collection years 2007 to the present, some participating
States have achieved their revenue entitlement while others have
exceeded it. In the latter case, the excess amount is forwarded to a
depository established by the Board for distribution to those States
that have not collected enough fees to reach their entitlement (49
U.S.C. 14504a(h)(2) and (3)). However, overall, revenue collections in
2009, like the previous years, have fallen short. The following table
shows the amount of revenue shortfall for each registration year, based
on information provided by the Board. Figures to date show that States
are approximately 28 percent short of collecting their revenue
entitlement.
[[Page 45586]]
Table 2--UCR Registration Summary 2007 to 2009 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State revenue Entities Revenue Revenue
Registration year entitlement registered received shortfall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................ $101,772,400 237,157 $73,937,310 $27,835,090
2008............................................ 107,777,060 270,794 76,617,155 31,159,905
2009............................................ 107,777,060 282,483 77,148,988 30,628,072
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Does not include estimated administrative expenses and revenue reserve that are included in the overall
revenue target.
Beginning in early 2009, the Board began discussions to address the
shortfall in the 2010 fee recommendation. On February 12, 2009, the
Board held a public meeting by telephone conference call to discuss the
2010 fees and fee structure. At that meeting, a motion was made to
recommend a proposal that passed with a vote of 10 to 3 with one
abstention. On April 3, 2009, the Board submitted a recommendation
based on this proposal to the Secretary.
Upon review by FMCSA, several fundamental issues were identified in
the assumptions of the April 3 recommendation. To clarify the issues
and assist the Board, FMCSA hosted a conference call on April 23, 2009,
with the Board's chair and the chair of the Revenue and Fees
Subcommittee. After this discussion, the Subcommittee met and discussed
several options at the May 14, 2009, Board meeting. No consensus was
reached. At the June 16, 2009, meeting, the Board discussed informal
options developed by a member of both the Board and the Revenue and
Fees Subcommittee. The Board voted to reconsider the April 3
recommendation upon hearing these new options and the matter was
referred back to the Subcommittee for further action. At the July 9,
2009, meeting, a vote was taken on two new options but the Board was
unable to reach consensus on either proposal with both options
receiving an equal number of votes. On July 15, 2009, the Board sent a
letter to the Secretary noting this fact and asked FMCSA to proceed
with the rulemaking process using the April 3 recommendation.
The following sections in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
discuss the Board recommendation and other proposals in greater detail
and outline the areas where FMCSA encouraged the Board to address the
issues of greatest concern. Section V details the FMCSA-recommended
2010 UCR fees and fee structure. The NPRM concludes with the regulatory
analysis and notices.
IV. UCR Fee Proposals for Calendar Year 2010
In the course of developing its fee recommendation for 2010, the
Board considered several different proposals, both before and after
submitting a recommendation on April 3, 2009. Some of these proposals,
in addition to the proposal formally recommended, were either supported
by different interests on the Board or were considered for possible
substitution for the recommended proposal. Each proposal is set out in
this NPRM for public comment; however, FMCSA does not believe that each
proposal satisfies the statutory requirements. After setting out and
assessing each proposal, FMCSA proposes a fee and fee bracket structure
that is based on one of the proposals with modifications to meet the
statutory requirements.
A. The UCR Plan Recommendation
The first proposal is the UCR Plan formal recommendation. The
Board's fee recommendation was approved by a vote of a majority of the
members of the Board on February 12, 2009, and was submitted to the
Secretary on April 3, 2009. It is available at https://www.regulations.gov under the docket number shown above. It recommends
establishing the fee and fee bracket structure shown in the following
table:
Table 3--UCR Board Formal Fee and Bracket Recommendation for 2010 Transmitted on April 3, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
for exempt or
Number of commercial motor non-exempt Fee per entity
vehicles owned or operated by motor carrier, for broker or
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor motor private leasing
carrier, motor private carrier, carrier, or company
or freight forwarder freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1............................................ 0-1............................. $83 $83
B2............................................ 2-5............................. 166 ..............
B3............................................ 6-20............................ 497 ..............
B4............................................ 21-100.......................... 1,741 ..............
B5............................................ 101-1,000....................... 8,373 ..............
B6............................................ 1,001 and above................. 82,983 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board assigned its Revenue and Fees Subcommittee responsibility
for calculating the overall revenue requirement and recommending fees
and the fee bracket structure.\4\ The Board then reviewed the analysis
conducted by the Revenue and Fees Subcommittee and selected the fees
and fee bracket structure that it recommended to FMCSA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The membership of the Subcommittee is shown in Appendix BB
of the April 3 transmittal.
\5\ The FMCSA designated representative abstained from the
Board's vote regarding the fee recommendation to prevent any real or
potential conflict of interest due to his position within FMCSA in
reviewing the Board's recommendation and setting the fees under the
statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of the Subcommittee and Board consideration of
various proposals, industry representatives on the Board \6\ took the
position that they would not support any recommendation that adjusted
the
[[Page 45587]]
fees beyond the amount necessary to reflect the statutory amendment
changing the definition of commercial motor vehicle for purposes of
calculating fleet size. Such a proposal, which was presented, but not
voted on, at the Board's February 12, 2009, public meeting, is set out
in the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Under 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(B)(iii), five of the fifteen
members of the board are ``from the motor carrier industry.''
Table 4--Proposed Fee and Fee Structure for 2010 Based on Revised Definition of CMV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
for exempt or
Number of commercial motor non-exempt Fee per entity
vehicles owned or operated by motor carrier, for broker or
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor motor private leasing
carrier, motor private carrier, carrier, or company
or freight forwarder freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1............................................ 0-1............................. $61 $61
B2............................................ 2-5............................. 122 ..............
B3............................................ 6-20............................ 366 ..............
B4............................................ 21-100.......................... 1,281 ..............
B5............................................ 101-1,000....................... 6,163 ..............
B6............................................ 1,001 and above................. 61,081 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two proposals in Tables 3 and 4 are similar with one major
exception. The Board's recommendation (Table 3) was premised on an
assumption that only 260,466 motor carrier entities would register with
the UCR Plan in 2010, out of the 433,535 motor carrier entities that
FMCSA and the Board identified as active. The proposal informally
supported by industry representatives (Table 4) assumed that all
433,535 apparently active entities will register in 2010. Because of
the similarity between these two proposals, they can be discussed
together for the purpose of assessing their compliance with the
statutory requirements.
The discussion below of the development of the population will
address the difference between the two proposals. The methodology the
Board and FMCSA used to derive the 433,535 figure is discussed later in
this section. Table 4 is particularly significant in that it sets the
new ``baseline'' for the UCR fee and fee structure based on the
statutory change amending the definition of CMV which removed trailers.
Before discussing the recommendation and various alternative proposals,
FMCSA will discuss the elements common to each proposal.
1. Certification of State Revenues
The first step in certifying State revenue entitlements is to
establish the participating jurisdictions for 2010. Section
14504a(e)(1) of the statute established a final deadline of August 10,
2008, for participation by the 51 States eligible to participate in the
UCR Plan and Agreement.\7\ Of the 38 States that participated in SSRS
in 2006, all but two, California and North Carolina, agreed to
participate in the UCR in registration year 2007. Of the thirteen
States that did not participate in SSRS, only Oregon agreed to
participate in the UCR for registration year 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The District of Columbia, which is not participating, is
considered a State for this purpose (49 U.S.C. 13102(21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the August 10, 2008, statutory deadline, both California
and North Carolina, formerly States participating in SSRS, joined the
UCR Plan. Oregon withdrew from participation and Pennsylvania,\8\
Alaska and Delaware, which had not participated in SSRS, agreed to
participate in the UCR for registration year 2008 and subsequent years.
Therefore, there are now 41 States participating and 10 States
(including the District of Columbia) not participating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pennsylvania did not participate in SSRS; however, the
statute permits it to collect revenues generated under the UCR
Agreement in an amount equivalent to the amount it collected in
intrastate registration fees from interstate motor carriers in 2004.
49 U.S.C. 14504a(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop a nationwide figure for the replacement revenues needed
under the UCR Agreement, the Board asked those States that either had
participated in SSRS or had intrastate registration revenues
statutorily authorized to be included in the total revenue amount to
provide information on the revenues they received for the registration
year 2004. This was the year specified in the statute for establishing
the amount of revenues they were entitled to receive under the UCR
Agreement. The total certified State revenue figure for UCR for 2010 is
$106,777,060. (See Table 5 which is based on Exhibit D to the Board's
recommendation.)
SAFETEA-LU caps the maximum revenue figure for other UCR States
that did not participate in SSRS at $500,000 per year (49 U.S.C.
14504a(g)(3)). Because two such non-SSRS States have agreed to
participate in the UCR for registration year 2010 (Alaska and
Delaware), the Board added $1,000,000 to the total entitlement figure,
bringing the total State revenue requirement for 2010 to $107,777,060.
The Board's calculation of the total revenue for 2010 was properly
based upon the revenues collected by the participating States (both
under SSRS and for intrastate registration of interstate carriers) for
the calendar year 2004. These State revenue entitlements are unchanged
from the entitlements for 2008 and 2009, which were previously approved
by FMCSA orders. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(g)(4), FMCSA
proposes to approve the amount of revenue under the UCR Agreement to
which each State participating in 2010 is entitled, as specified in
Table 5.
Table 5--State UCR Revenue Entitlements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2010 UCR
State revenue
entitlements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................. $2,939,964.00
Arkansas............................................. 1,817,360.00
California........................................... 2,131,710.00
Colorado............................................. 1,801,615.00
Connecticut.......................................... 3,129,840.00
Georgia.............................................. 2,660,060.00
Idaho................................................ 547,696.68
Illinois............................................. 3,516,993.00
Indiana.............................................. 2,364,879.00
Iowa................................................. 474,742.00
Kansas............................................... 4,344,290.00
Kentucky............................................. 5,365,980.00
Louisiana............................................ 4,063,836.00
Maine................................................ 1,555,672.00
Massachusetts........................................ 2,282,887.00
Michigan............................................. 7,520,717.00
Minnesota............................................ 1,137,132.30
Missouri............................................. 2,342,000.00
Mississippi.......................................... 4,322,100.00
Montana.............................................. 1,049,063.00
Nebraska............................................. 741,974.00
New Hampshire........................................ 2,273,299.00
New Mexico........................................... 3,292,233.00
New York............................................. 4,414,538.00
[[Page 45588]]
North Carolina....................................... 372,007.00
North Dakota......................................... 2,010,434.00
Ohio................................................. 4,813,877.74
Oklahoma............................................. 2,457,796.00
Pennsylvania......................................... 4,945,527.00
Rhode Island......................................... 2,285,486.00
South Carolina....................................... 2,420,120.00
South Dakota......................................... 855,623.00
Tennessee............................................ 4,759,329.00
Texas................................................ 2,718,628.06
Utah................................................. 2,098,408.00
Virginia............................................. 4,852,865.00
Washington........................................... 2,467,971.00
West Virginia........................................ 1,431,727.03
Wisconsin............................................ 2,196,680.00
------------------
Sub-Total........................................ 106,777,059.81
Alaska............................................... 500,000
Delaware............................................. 500,000
------------------
Total State Revenue Entitlement.................. 107,777,060
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Administrative Costs
Under section 14504a(d)(7) of the statute, the costs incurred by
the Board to administer the UCR Agreement are eligible for inclusion in
the total revenue to be collected. The Board continues to estimate
$5,000,000 for 2010 administrative expenses, and included that amount
in the revenue target.
3. Revenue Target
In addition to the 2010 State revenue target ($107,777,060) and the
administrative expenses ($5,000,000), the Board also included a reserve
in its revenue target recommendation to FMCSA an additional amount of
$563,885, equal to one-half of one percent of the State revenue total
and administrative expenses. This calculation methodology is consistent
with the 2007 final rule. This brings the overall UCR entitlement to
$113,340,945.
4. Carrier Population
The Board's recommendation is based on a method for determining the
carrier population that is different from the one used in 2007. In
2007, the Board assumed that revenues would be generated ``from all
motor carrier entities involved in interstate commerce.'' Each of the
five categories of motor carrier entities is defined by statute (in
some cases with modifications or additions found in section 14504a) as
shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6--Categories of Motor Carrier Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Definition in 49 U.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carrier................ 13102(14) and 14504a(a)(5).
Motor Private Carrier........ 13102(15).
Freight Forwarder............ 13102(8) [Freight forwarders that operate
motor vehicles are treated as motor
carriers. 13903(b) and 14504a(b)].
Broker....................... 13102(2).
Leasing Company.............. 14504a(a)(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the number of 2007 UCR entities, the Board (using the
SafetyNet system) filtered data from the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) to capture carriers that had updated their
MCS-150 census file \9\, had an inspection, crash, safety audit, or
compliance review recorded within the past 12 months (March 1, 2006,
through February 26, 2007). Applying this criteria (or filter) to
identify recent activity to approximately 730,000 carriers listed in
the database, the Board filtered out almost 380,000 carriers, leaving
an estimated total number of active interstate carriers of 350,698. The
Board then considered freight forwarders and brokers listed in the
FMCSA Licensing and Insurance (L&I) System. The number, as provided by
FMCSA, was approximately 19,000. After freight forwarders that also
operate CMVs were excluded to avoid double counting, the Board
estimated the total number of freight forwarders and brokers as 14,575.
Summing the 350,698 active interstate carriers and 14,575 freight
forwarders and brokers, the Board arrived at a total affected
population of 365,273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Pursuant to 49 CFR 390.19 Motor carrier identification
report, a motor carrier must file its update of the MC-150 form
every 24 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish its carrier population estimate for 2010, the Board
began with the MCMIS database for February 4, 2009, and applied the
same filters used in 2007 with the minor change of extending the
activity period to 15 months. The Board also included in the set of
filters whether the carrier had registered under UCR. In addition, the
Board took L&I data on September 10, 2008, and, as before, filtered it
to avoid double counting. For 2010, this process yielded an estimate of
433,535 for the full universe of carriers, brokers and freight
forwarders.
The Board then adjusted the estimated full universe by the
percentage of entities that had actually registered in each of the six
brackets specified in the fee structure, compared to the number of
entities that the Board had determined were potential registrants in
each bracket. This approach yielded a total estimated population of
260,466 carriers, brokers and freight forwarders, as illustrated by the
following table. This table contains the information in Figures 13 and
14 \10\ from the Board's recommendation and provides the percentages
used by the Board to adjust its population estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See figures 13 and 14 as shown on page 8 of the April 3,
transmittal.
[[Page 45589]]
Table 7--Summary of Board Population Estimate for 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008
Bracket 2008 Full 2008 Percent (%) 2010 Full 2010
universe Registered registered universe Population
(A) (B) (C) = B/A (D) (E) = D x C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Brokers & 16,457 2,630 16.0 16,457 2,630
Freight
Forwarders.
1............................ 0-1............. 202,415 116,163 57.4 194,425 111,578
2............................ 2-5............. 89,773 56,489 62.9 145,266 91,408
3............................ 6-20............ 85,015 57,946 68.2 65,155 38,275
4............................ 21-100.......... 30,716 23,566 76.7 17,350 13,311
5............................ 101-1,000....... 8,118 6,800 83.8 3,590 3,007
6............................ 1,001-More...... 785 690 87.9 292 257
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................... ................ 433,279 264,284 ........... 433,535 260,466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board's position in adopting this approach was that it was
unreasonable to expect the States to register and collect fees from all
potential registrants. Based on the historical registration experience,
the Board also believed that this approach increased the likelihood of
collecting the target revenues, although the approach was potentially
vulnerable to under-collection if carriers registered in brackets
different from those to which they would be expected to belong to,
based on MCMIS. Industry representatives voiced concern over this
approach, contending it benefited potential registrants who had been
and continued to be noncompliant, while it increased the burden on
compliant registrants.
5. Number of Fee Brackets
The Board recommended the same number of brackets for 2010 that it
had recommended in 2007. The Board decided to use the maximum number of
brackets allowed by statute, thereby reducing the range of fleet sizes
within individual brackets. The Board revised the first bracket for
2010 from 0-2 to 0-1, to reflect the elimination of towed units
(trailers) and similarly, the second bracket was changed from 3-5 to 2-
5. The Board retained brackets 3 through 6 as they had been established
in 2007.
6. Fee Levels for Each Bracket
As discussed above under Section IV.A.3. Revenue Target, the
Board's target revenue figure with administrative costs and reserve for
2010 is $113,340,945. To determine how to allocate the total
entitlement figure of $113,340,945 across the six brackets, the Board
used a model that calculated (1) the number of entities in each
bracket; (2) the revenues generated by each bracket at different fee
amounts; (3) total revenues; and (4) any surplus or deficit from the
$113,340,945 target figure. The Board also considered fairness in terms
of fees per motor vehicle while assigning the fees for each bracket.
This model is consistent with the one used in 2007, it ensures that the
maximum fee per commercial motor vehicle in any given bracket would be
no higher than the maximum fee per commercial motor vehicle in the next
smaller bracket. The fees recommended by the Board range from a low of
$83 for carriers in the lowest bracket (0 to 1 CMVs) to a high of
$82,983 (the 1001-or-greater CMVs bracket). (See Table 3.) The Board
estimated that this fee structure would generate $113,338,310 in
revenues. This amount is slightly below the target figure, with a
projected deficit of $2,635 for the UCR registration year 2010.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A deficit arises when rounding is not applied to the fees,
otherwise the total revenue equals $113,354,360, which leads to a
surplus of $13,415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The FMCSA Analysis
FMCSA's primary issues with the April 3 Board recommendation
involve: (1) The need to recognize the revenue shortfalls caused by
``bracket shifting,'' i.e., motor carriers registering in a fee bracket
that is different from that reflected in MCMIS and (2) the number of
motor carrier entities that could be expected to comply with the
statute and register and the related issue of the States' level of
enforcement.
1. Bracket Shifting
The UCR registration fees and fee brackets have been based on the
assumption that motor carrier entities subject to UCR registration
requirements will pay fees based on the number of vehicles (fleet size)
reported in the motor carrier identification report (Form MCS-150).
Under 49 CFR 390.19, this report is required to be filed with FMCSA and
updated at least biennially. However, experience over three years has
shown that a significant proportion of motor carriers are paying fees
based on fleet sizes that are different than what would be expected
from the fleet sizes reported to FMCSA. Empirical analyses prepared by
or on behalf of a member of the Board have shown that the overall net
effect of this bracket shifting by registering motor carriers has been
a significant reduction in expected revenue (25.04 percent in 2008).
Bracket shifting, which can be appropriate under the statute, occurs
because available data sources used to develop the UCR fees and fee
structures do not always accurately predict actual registrations.
On Form MCS-150, motor carriers are required to report separately
the number of self-propelled vehicles (i.e., power units) of various
types and the number of towed vehicles (i.e., trailers), if any, that
are owned or leased by the carrier, and then total ``the number of each
type of CMV that [it] uses in its U.S. operations.'' See instructions
for item 26, Form MCS-150 at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/forms/r-l/MCS-150-Instructions-and-Form.pdf. That information is compiled in
MCMIS. The data, including the number of self-propelled and towed CMVs
operated by motor carriers, was and is made available to the Board to
enable it to develop its fees and fee bracket structure. The fees for
the registration years 2007, 2008 and 2009 were developed by the Board
on the assumption that each motor carrier that registered would pay a
fee according to the bracket that is indicated by the number of
vehicles owned and operated (both self-propelled and towed) reported in
the MCMIS database. For 2010, because of the change in the applicable
definition for CMV, the fleet sizes and applicable fees will be
determined only by the number of self-propelled CMVs.
There are several ways that a motor carrier entity can determine
its fleet size. Fees charged to a registering motor carrier or freight
forwarder ``shall be based on the number of commercial motor vehicles
owned or operated * * *'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(A)(i)). A
[[Page 45590]]
CMV is ``owned or operated'' by the motor carrier or freight forwarder
if, during the registration year, it is either registered under Federal
or State law (or both) or controlled under a ``long term lease'' (49
U.S.C. 14504a(f)(2)). The UCR Plan has determined that a lease of a CMV
must be for more than 30 days to be considered a long term lease. See
https://www.ucr.in.gov/MCS/2009%20UCR%20Instruction%20Sheet.doc.
However, FMCSA requires that all leased vehicles, long term or
otherwise, be reported on the MCS-150.
A registering motor carrier or freight forwarder then has the
option of basing the number of CMVs owned or operated on either (1) the
number reported on its most recently filed MCS-150; or (2) the total
number owned or operated for the 12-month period ending on June 30 of
the year preceding the registration year (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3)). This
number is determined, for either option, after excluding leased
vehicles that are under lease terms of 30 days or less. https://www.ucr.in.gov/MCS/2009%20UCR%20Instruction%20Sheet.doc. A motor
carrier may include in its calculation of fleet size ``any commercial
motor vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3)) and ``any self-propelled
vehicle used on the highway in commerce to transport passengers or
property for compensation regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating
of the vehicle or the number of passengers transported by such
vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(1)(B)). On the other hand, motor
carriers and motor private carriers may elect not to include any CMV
used ``exclusively in the intrastate transportation of property, waste,
or recyclable material'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(3)).
Tables 8 and 9 below show the effect of bracket shifting in 2008.
Table 8 shows the fee brackets that motor carriers selected when
registering under the UCR Plan for 2008 and compares that to the
brackets in which the carriers would have registered if the fleet size
used was derived from MCMIS. Table 9 shows the revenue impacts of the
brackets shifting in Table 8. A board member presented these tables to
the Board during public meetings in June and July, 2009, and the tables
have been placed in the docket.
Table 8--2008 UCR Registration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid bracket
MCMIS Bracket ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 107,277 7,109 1,617 94 6 0 116,103
2....................................... 18,732 33,518 4,002 108 5 0 56,365
3....................................... 6,132 10,390 40,086 1,191 18 2 57,819
4....................................... 1,092 1,026 5,968 15,264 174 0 23,524
5....................................... 253 112 429 1,714 4,265 21 6,794
6....................................... 45 4 19 50 182 388 688
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................. 133,531 52,159 52,121 18,421 4,650 411 261,293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees paid........................... $5,207,709 $6,050,444 $12,039,951 $14,847,326 $17,856,000 $15,412,500 $71,413,930
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Revenue Impact 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid bracket
MCMIS Bracket ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. .............. $(547,393) $(310,464) $(72,098) $(22,806) ............... $(952,761)
2................................. $1,442,364 ............... (460,230) (74,520) (18,620) ............... 888,994
3................................. 1,177,344 1,194,850 ............... (684,825) (64,962) $(74,538) 1,547,869
4................................. 837,564 707,940 3,431,600 ............... (527,916) ............... 4,449,188
5................................. 961,653 417,088 1,548,261 5,200,276 ............... (706,860) 7,420,418
6................................. 1,685,745 149,536 708,111 1,834,700 6,126,120 ............... 10,504,212
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue change................ 6,104,670 1,922,021 4,917,278 6,203,533 5,491,816 (781,398) 23,857,920
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate a positive revenue impact whereas numbers not in parentheses indicate a negative revenue impact.
For example, of the 261,293 total number of carriers registered for
2008 (as of the date of the analysis in the above tables), 116,103
appeared to have fleet sizes from the MCMIS data that indicated that
they should have registered in the lowest UCR fee bracket. However,
almost 9,000 of those carriers registered in a higher bracket, for a
net revenue gain of almost $1 million. On the other hand, 26,254
carriers registered in the lowest bracket (MCMIS Bracket 2-6, under
Paid Bracket 1) although the MCMIS data indicated that they should be
registered in a bracket with a higher fee. The net result was a revenue
yield that was over $6.1 million less than expected. Similar patterns
appear in the other brackets--some carriers are registering in higher
brackets than expected--but significant numbers of carriers registered
in lower brackets. For registration year 2008, as Table 9 shows, the
net reduction in the expected revenue caused by bracket shifting was
$23,857,920. This represented about a 25.04 percent shortfall in the
expected revenues for 2008.
This amount was a substantial portion of the total revenue
shortfall of $31,159,905 experienced by the UCR Plan for registration
year 2008. Shortfalls in 2007 and 2009 were apparently due to a similar
phenomenon. In order to fulfill the statutory objective of ensuring
that the revenues derived from the fees are sufficient to provide the
revenues to
[[Page 45591]]
which the participating States are entitled (see 49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(1)(E)(i)), it appears to FMCSA that an adjustment needs to be
applied to the current fees to recognize the occurrence of bracket
shifting.
2. Compliance and Enforcement
Another factor affecting the revenues derived from the UCR
registration fees is the difficulty that participating States have in
registering all of the motor carrier entities that appear in the FMCSA
MCMIS database. Filtering that data in order to identify activity, the
Board and FMCSA based the initial fees established in 2007 on the
expectation that 365,273 motor carrier entities were active and would
register (Fees for Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement
NPRM, 72 FR 29472, 29475, May 29, 2007). In the April 3 submission, the
Board developed an estimated total of 433,535 entities that would be
active in 2010 by updating its activity indicia. However, the formal
recommendation posited that only 260,466 of those entities would
register for 2010, a relatively low level of compliance. The proposal
supported by the motor carrier industry representatives, on the other
hand, posited that all 433,535 of these entities would register for
2010, even though during the past three years the UCR Plan has never
achieved 100 percent compliance. See Table 2.
The reason for and solutions to this level of compliance is a
matter of significant disagreement between the States and industry
representatives on the Board. States have taken the position that low
compliance is due to limitations in the MCMIS data that prevent
identification of the appropriate active population, combined with
industry reluctance to register. Industry representatives have taken
the position that insufficient State enforcement activities are to
blame.
FMCSA believes that, though no realistic level of enforcement would
lead to 100 percent compliance, increased enforcement efforts on the
part of the participating States will be able to increase compliance
rates to a significant degree. FMCSA requests public comment on the
reasons for the low level of compliance. FMCSA also requests public
comment on potential solutions to determining the reasonableness of the
compliance and enforcement efforts by the States, including how they
would support a reasonable adjustment in the current fees.
3. The Board's Response to FMCSA Concerns: Alternative Proposals
In response to FMCSA concerns regarding the April 3 fee
recommendation, the Board's Revenue and Fee Subcommittee considered two
alternative fee proposals taking into account FMCSA's principal areas
of concern: Appropriate population definition, compliance rates, and
bracket shifting. These proposals relied upon a carrier population of
433,535, and used the current bracket structure. Both proposals
included a compliance factor, which indicated that it would be
reasonable to expect 90 percent of motor carrier entities in the
participating States to register, and 80 percent of the entities in
non-participating States to register. This factor has been named the
Registration Percentage Reasonableness, or RPR Factor.
The ten non-participating jurisdictions receive no revenues from
the UCR Plan, and thus have little motivation to devote resources to
enforcement of the UCR registration. Entities from those States engaged
in interstate transportation activities can only be subject to possible
enforcement if they conduct operations in a participating State. Data
reviewed by FMCSA indicates that only about 40 percent of motor carrier
entities in non-participating States are registering with the UCR Plan.
The first alternative proposal (Table 10) assumed that the
historical trend of revenue shortfall caused by bracket shifting would
continue in 2010 at the 2008 rate. The second proposal (Table 11)
assumed that the bracket shifting rate for 2010 would be about half of
the 2008 rate. This assumption was based on the fact that, under the
new definition of CMV, 2010 fleet sizes are estimated to approximate
one-half of the prior years' fleet sizes. The development of these
proposals was set out in the presentation made to the Board on July 9,
2009, which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
Applying these adjustments produced fees shown in the following two
tables:
Table 10--Alternative Fee Proposal for 2010 (No. 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
for exempt or
Number of commercial motor non-exempt Fee per entity
vehicles owned or operated by motor carrier, for broker or
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor motor private leasing
carrier, motor private carrier, carrier, or company
or freight forwarder freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1............................................ 0-2............................. $99 $99
B2............................................ 3-5............................. 295 ..............
B3............................................ 6-20............................ 587 ..............
B4............................................ 21-100.......................... 2,047 ..............
B5............................................ 101-1,000....................... 9,754 ..............
B6............................................ 1,001 and above................. 95,250 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45592]]
Table 11--Alternative Fee Proposal for 2010 (No. 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
for exempt or
Number of commercial motor non-exempt Fee per entity
vehicles owned or operated by motor carrier, for broker or
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor motor private leasing
carrier, motor private carrier, carrier, or company
or freight forwarder freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1............................................ 0-2............................. $83 $83
B2............................................ 3-5............................. 246 ..............
B3............................................ 6-20............................ 490 ..............
B4............................................ 21-100.......................... 1,709 ..............
B5............................................ 101-1,000....................... 8,141 ..............
B6............................................ 1,001 and above................. 79,500 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA fee proposal described below in Section V is derived from
the fee and fee bracket structure set forth in Table 10.
V. The FMCSA Fee Proposal
FMCSA and the Board are required to consider the factors
established by statute and laid out in detail in Section II, Statutory
Requirements for UCR Fees, above. In addition, FMCSA i
