Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement, 21993-22012 [2010-9674]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21993-22012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9674]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes annual registration fees and a fee 
bracket structure for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Agreement 
for the calendar year beginning 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: Effective Date: April 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Copies or abstracts of all comments and background documents 
referenced in this document are in Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0231. For 
access to the docket, go to:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Go 
to the ``Help'' section of regulations.gov to find electronic retrieval 
help and guidelines. Regulations.gov is generally available 24 hours 
each day, 365 days each year.
     DOT Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
Docket Management Facility hours are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review U.S. 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), or you 
may visit https://docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Julie Otto, Office of Enforcement 
and Program Delivery, (202) 366-0710, 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:

[[Page 21994]]

Table of Contents

I. List of Abbreviations
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
III. Statutory Requirements for the UCR Fees
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM
VI. The Final Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. List of Abbreviations

    The following is a list of abbreviations used in this document:

Alabama PSC Alabama Public Service Commission
AMSA American Moving and Storage Association
ATA American Trucking Associations
Board Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors
California DMV California Department of Motor Vehicles
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CTA California Trucking Association
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
IFTA International Fuel Tax Agreement
IRP International Registration Plan
MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System
Missouri DOT Missouri Department of Transportation
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCSTS National Conference of State Transportation Specialists
NPTC National Private Truck Council
Pennsylvania PUC Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
RPR Registration Percentage Reasonableness
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SSRS Single State Registration System
TCA Truckload Carriers Association
TIA Transportation Intermediaries Association
TRLA Truck Renting and Leasing Association
UCR Unified Carrier Registration
UCR Agreement Unified Carrier Registration Agreement
UPS United Parcel Service

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This 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, 
Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 467 (Aug. 3, 2007).
    \2\ The Senate bill's provisions were enacted ``with 
modifications.'' H.R. Rep. No. 109-203, at 1020 (2005) (Conf. Rep.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 from 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, FMCSA 
published a notice announcing the reappointment to the Board of the 
five Board members from the State agencies nominated by NCSTS (72 FR 
39660). On June 30, 2008, FMCSA published a notice announcing the 
reappointment of the members from the four FMCSA service areas to the 
Board (73 FR 36956). On January 28, 2010, (75 FR 4521) FMCSA published 
a request for public comments along with recommendations for 
appointment of the five members from the motor carrier industry.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The terms of the current members from the motor carrier 
industry have expired, but all but one continue to serve until 
either they are reappointed or successors are appointed (49 U.S.C. 
14504a(d)(1)(D)(iii) and (iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among its responsibilities, the Board is required to submit to the 
Secretary of Transportation \4\ 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 adjustments to the fees 
and fee brackets must be adopted following the same timelines and 
procedures (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. 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:
     Administrative costs associated with the UCR Plan and 
Agreement.
     Whether the revenues generated in the previous year and 
any surplus or shortage from that or prior years enable the 
participating States to achieve the revenue levels set by the Board.
     Provisions governing fees in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1).


[[Page 21995]]


Subsection (f)(1) provides that the 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)(B) of the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848, 
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 [of title 49, 
United States Code]'' (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.
    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 that 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.
    Participating states are required by statute to use UCR revenue 
``for motor carrier safety programs, enforcement, or the administration 
of the UCR plan and UCR agreement'' (49 U.S.C. 14504a(e)(1)(B)). In 
addition, as permitted by statute, at least one-third of the 
participating states use the revenue produced by the UCR program to 
provide their share of the costs of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program (MSCAP) that is not provided by a grant from FMCSA. The purpose 
of the MCSAP grant program is ``to improve commercial motor vehicle 
safety and enforce commercial motor vehicle regulations, standards, or 
orders * * *'' (49 U.S.C. 31102(a)). The UCR revenues that contribute 
to the MCSAP are used primarily for driver/vehicle inspections, traffic 
enforcement, compliance reviews, public education and awareness, and 
data collection. A great deal of the funding is used to pay state 
employee salaries to conduct these activities.

Statutory Requirements for the Fees

    The FMCSA acknowledges stakeholders' concerns regarding all the 
factors under the statute that should have been considered when 
determining the fees. For example, in response to the September 3, 
2009, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) the American Trucking 
Associations, Inc. (ATA) and a number of other industry members and 
associations assert that FMCSA has not considered all of the relevant 
factors under the statute in considering the fees that should be set 
for 2010 for the UCR Plan and Agreement. Specifically, ATA asserts that 
the Agency should have considered: (1) The state of the economy; (2) 
the effect of the fee increase on the trucking industry; (3) the 
continuing failure of the States to audit and enforce UCR Agreement 
requirements; (4) the effect on future collections of the elimination 
of towed vehicles from the fleets; (5) the danger of spiraling fee 
increases; and (6) the creation of a ``moral hazard'' by FMCSA's 
acquiescence to an increase in the fees. However, only one of these 
factors is specified expressly in the statute--the effect of the 
elimination of trailers. The factors that FMCSA believes to be relevant 
under the statute are addressed in more detail below. FMCSA will 
address below several comments regarding the economic significance of 
the rulemaking and the impact of the fees to industry. The Agency has 
chosen to discuss these issues in the most relevant sections of the 
rule, rather than in the section reserved for comments.
    FMCSA's interpretation of its responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 
14504a in setting fees for the UCR Plan and Agreement is guided by the 
primacy the statute places on the need both to set and to adjust the 
fees so that they ``provide the revenues to which the States are 
entitled.'' The statute links the requirement that the fees be adjusted 
``within a reasonable range'' to the provision of sufficient revenues 
to meet the entitlements of the participating States (49 U.S.C. 
14504a(f)(1)(E), see also 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A)(ii)).
    The legislative history accompanying the enactment of the statute 
in 2005 confirms this primary focus on the need to provide the States 
the revenue levels set in accordance with the statute:

    States that currently participate in the SSRS and choose to 
participate in UCRS [sic] would be guaranteed the revenues they 
derived from SSRS during the last fiscal year ending prior to the 
enactment of this Act. States that did not participate in SSRS but 
opt to join UCRS [sic] would be entitled to annual revenues of not 
more than $500,000. (H.R. Rep. 109-203 at 1019 (2005) (Conf. Rep.) 
(emphasis added))

    The emphasized words support FMCSA's interpretation of the statute, 
which gives primacy to providing the revenue entitlements to the 
participating States in each year.
    Section 14504a(h)(4) gives additional support for this 
interpretation. As noted in the comments by the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance (CVSA), this provision explicitly requires FMCSA to 
reduce the fees for all motor carrier entities in the year following 
any year in which the depository retains any funds in excess of the 
amount necessary to satisfy the revenue entitlements of the 
participating States and the UCR Plan's administrative costs. No 
analogous provision in the statute requires an increase in the fees in 
the following year to make up for any shortfall in the revenues 
provided by the fees.
    In light of this context, FMCSA has interpreted the statutory text 
that directs that any annual adjustment be ``within a reasonable 
range'' to mean that the determination of what is reasonable must be 
made in light of the statutory objective. Whitman v. American Trucking 
Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 466 (2001) (``Words that can have 
more than one meaning are given context, however, by their 
surroundings.'') and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 
120, 132 (2000) (``[T]he meaning--or

[[Page 21996]]

ambiguity--of certain words or phrases may only become evident when 
placed in context.'') Therefore, if consideration of a factor 
frustrates the statutory objective of providing the participating 
States sufficient revenues, the statute does not permit FMCSA to 
consider it as a relevant factor.

IV. Background

    The initial UCR fees and fee structure were 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 for 2009 as for 2007 and 2008. 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 to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fee per entity
                                                  Number of CMVs owned or       for exempt or
                                                operated by exempt or non-    non-exempt motor   Fee per entity
                   Bracket                      exempt motor carrier, motor    carrier, motor     for broker or
                                                private carrier, or freight   private carrier,   leasing company
                                                         forwarder               or 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. The participating States are 
approximately 28 percent short of collecting their revenue entitlement.

                                 TablE 2--UCR Registration Summary 2007 to 2009*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            State revenue       Entities                             Revenue
            Registration year                entitlement       registered     Revenue 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.

    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. The recommendation is available in the 
docket.
    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. However, both 
options received an equal number of votes; the Board was unable to 
reach consensus on either proposal. 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 
letter from the Board dated July 15, 2009, is available in the docket.

A. FMCSA Analysis of Board Recommendation

    The Agency conducted its own analysis of the Board's formal 
recommendation, as well as alternative fee proposals considered by the 
Revenue and Fee Subcommittee of the Board. FMCSA concluded that it 
could not base its fee determination on the Board's recommendation, and 
made an independent analysis of two issues in particular: (1) ``bracket 
shifting,'' i.e., motor carriers registering in a fee

[[Page 21997]]

bracket that is different from that based on the fleet size 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. FMCSA carefully examined the 
Board's entire fee recommendation, including its methodology and 
specific findings. FMCSA also 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. Based on its 
independent analysis, FMCSA published an NPRM on September 3, 2009 (74 
FR 45583), containing its own fee proposal.
    FMCSA's NPRM described several alternative fee structures for 2010. 
First, it noted a proposal informally supported by industry 
representatives on the Board as the basis for fees in 2010 (described 
in Table 4 in the NPRM (74 FR 45587)). This fee structure, like the 
other fee structure evaluated by FMCSA, reflected the revised 
definition of CMV consisting only of power units. However, it did not 
incorporate any adjustments for bracket shifting and assumed full 
compliance by active motor carriers based on an assumption that all 
433,535 apparently active entities, as identified in MCMIS and 
considered by the Board to be active, would register to pay fees in 
2010.
    FMCSA noted that experience over the 3 years of UCR's existence, 
2007-2009, had shown that a significant proportion of motor carriers 
were paying fees based on fleet sizes different from (and usually 
smaller than) what would have been expected from the fleet sizes 
reported to FMCSA. The net effect of this bracket shifting has been a 
significant reduction in expected revenue (25.04 percent in 2008). 
FMCSA concluded that bracket shifting, which can be appropriate under 
the statute as explained in the NPRM, occurs because the available data 
sources used to develop UCR fees and fee structure do not always 
accurately predict actual registrations (74 FR 45589).
    FMCSA also noted in the NPRM that States participating in the UCR 
program sometimes have difficulty registering all of the motor carriers 
that appear in the MCMIS database, even after certain filters have been 
applied to identify motor carriers that have had recent activity and 
are still most likely to be active. As FMCSA noted, the reasons for and 
solutions to the level-of-compliance issues are matters of significant 
disagreement between the States and industry representatives on the 
Board. The States have taken the position that low compliance is due to 
limitations in the MCMIS data that prevent identification of the 
appropriate active population, even with the use of data filters, 
combined with the reluctance of some industry members to register. 
Industry representatives have taken the position that insufficient 
State enforcement activities are to blame (74 FR 45591). FMCSA asked in 
particular for public comment on the reasons for the low level of 
compliance and on potential solutions to determining the reasonableness 
of the compliance and enforcement activities by the States, including 
how they would support a reasonable adjustment in the current fees (74 
FR 45591).

B. Compliance and Enforcement

    FMCSA concluded that a compliance rate of 100 percent is not 
feasible. However, the Agency did agree with the concept of setting 
fees based on an assumption of significantly improved compliance and 
enforcement activities by the States. Thus, the fees proposed in the 
NPRM were set assuming that participating States would achieve a 
compliance rate of 90 percent. Because ten non-participating States do 
not receive revenues from the UCR Plan, FMCSA assumed that they would 
have less incentive to exert effort on enforcement. However, in FMCSA's 
opinion, improved roadside enforcement by participating States, to 
capture potential registrants from non-participating States when they 
cross borders into participating States, would improve compliance rates 
among carriers from non-participating States to approximately 59 
percent. The Agency therefore based its fee proposal on a weighted 
average projected compliance rate of 86.42 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This weighted average projected compliance rate has been 
slightly adjusted for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Bracket Shift

    FMCSA estimated the effects of bracket shifting and, in doing so, 
recognized that carriers with different fleet sizes pay different fees 
and that compliance rates vary by carrier size. The Agency's proposal 
takes into account the effect of increased registration rates, due to 
anticipated improvements in compliance and enforcement, on revenue 
collection. This adjustment assumed that the carriers that remain non-
compliant despite increased enforcement efforts would have somewhat 
smaller fleet sizes and the new registrants registering as a result of 
increased enforcement efforts would have larger fleet sizes.
    Finally, FMCSA noted that, without any other changes, each fee 
would need to be adjusted to take into account the elimination of 
trailers from the definition of CMV, which reduces many carriers' 
fleets. As the Agency noted, ``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'' (74 FR 45592). Therefore, 
after factoring in compliance improvements and bracket shifting, FMCSA 
concluded that the 2009 fees must be increased by a factor of 2.22 to 
establish the fees for 2010 proposed in the NPRM. FMCSA concluded that 
those fees would provide the revenues to which the participating States 
are entitled. The Agency found that the proposed fees were based on a 
reasonable estimate of the number of active motor carriers subject to 
the UCR fees; reflected the statutory change in the definition of CMV; 
addressed bracket shifting; and set reasonable targets for compliance 
by the motor carrier industry to encourage enhanced enforcement efforts 
by the participating States (74 FR 45595). The proposed 2010 fees as 
shown in the NPRM are presented in Table 3.

[[Page 21998]]



   Table 3--Fees Under The Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement Proposed for Registration Year 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fee per entity
                                                  Number of CMVs owned or       for exempt or
                                                operated by exempt or non-    non-exempt motor   Fee per entity
                   Bracket                      exempt motor carrier, motor    carrier, motor     for broker or
                                               private  carrier, or freight   private carrier,   leasing company
                                                         forwarder               or freight
                                                                                  forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1..........................................  0-2...........................               $87               $87
B2..........................................  3-5...........................               258  ................
B3..........................................  6-20..........................               514  ................
B4..........................................  21-100........................             1,793  ................
B5..........................................  101-1,000.....................             8,541  ................
B6..........................................  1,001 and above...............            83,412  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM

    The statute established a 90-day time period for FMCSA to set UCR 
fees and fee structure following receipt of a recommendation from the 
Board. Because of this statutory limit, FMCSA initially set the time 
period for public comment at 15 days, concluding on September 18, 2009. 
On September 18, the Agency published a notice extending the comment 
period for an additional 10 days, to September 28, 2009 (74 FR 47912).

A. Number and Description of Commenters

    FMCSA received over 150 comments on the proposed rule from a wide 
variety of sources. Comments (including some filed late) were received 
from 114 industry members, nearly all of whom registered opposition to 
the proposed fees. In addition, 22 industry associations submitted 
comments. In general, they also opposed the fees proposed by FMCSA. 
Sixteen State agencies and two State associations commented, nearly all 
in support of the fee proposal.

B. Comments Favoring the Proposal

Comments
    Fifteen State agencies, including the Alabama Public Service 
Commission, Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Illinois Commerce 
Commission, Kansas Corporation Commission, Kentucky Transportation 
Cabinet, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Michigan Public 
Service Commission, Missouri Department of Transportation, New Mexico 
Public Regulation Commission, New York State Department of 
Transportation, North Dakota Department of Transportation, Oklahoma 
Corporation Commission, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the West 
Virginia Public Service Corporation, expressed strong support for the 
fee proposal in the NPRM. Many of the public agencies submitted 
essentially identical comments, stating that FMCSA had taken into 
account the three key points that needed to be addressed for a new fee 
structure: (1) The removal of towed units for purposes of determining 
fleet size, which by itself would require a fee increase by a factor of 
1.61; (2) bracket shift, resulting in an approximately 26 percent 
decrease in revenues; and (3) the level of State enforcement efforts to 
address non-compliance. These commenters argued that ``the net effect 
of `bracket shift' and the exclusion of trailers have had a much 
greater impact on the need for a fee increase than has non-
compliance.'' In addition, the Alabama Public Service Commission 
(Alabama PSC) commented that UCR collections and revenue had increased 
each year and, considering that the UCR program was only celebrating 
its second anniversary in September 2009, its progress to date had been 
``commendable.''
    Two associations, the National Conference of State Transportation 
Specialists (NCSTS) and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), 
also supported the proposed fee structure. CVSA stated that the 
proposal represents the best method for reaching the goal of revenues 
equal to those received under the SSRS. CVSA noted that, despite the 
fee increase, the carriers in the top bracket would still pay far less 
than they would have paid under SSRS. CVSA also commented that the UCR 
program does not allow for a ``revenue windfall,'' meaning that if 
revenues exceed the target, FMCSA would be obligated to adjust the fees 
downward for the following year. CVSA stressed that the new fee 
structure needed to be issued effective no later than November 15, 
2009, to preclude additional shortfalls. Finally, CVSA commented that 
the fee structure for Registration Years 2008 and 2009 worked to the 
industry's benefit because the Board did not recommend a fee increase 
despite revenue shortfalls.
    One motor carrier approved of the fee proposal because it would 
benefit owner-operators and small trucking companies, largely due to 
the statutory change in the CMV definition removing trailers for UCR 
registration and by applying a fee from a lower bracket, even with the 
increased fee from that bracket. Although they did not support the fee 
proposal, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the 
Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) both supported the 
State revenue entitlement submitted for FMCSA approval with the Board's 
recommendation. ATA also described FMCSA's use of MCMIS data to 
determine the overall motor carrier population as ``unobjectionable'' 
and added, ``The underlying data may not be all it should be, but 
anyone working in this area must begin with it.''
Response
    FMCSA continues to agree that the statutory change in the 
definition of motor vehicle (a part of the population factor), bracket 
shifting, and the registration compliance rate (the enforcement factor) 
are essential factors to consider in the fee calculation methodology. 
FMCSA also agrees with ATA's comment that MCMIS data is the starting 
point for determining the appropriate carrier population. However, the 
Agency also understands the limitations to using MCMIS, which is a 
self-reporting system that was not designed for UCR purposes. (See 
Section V (C)(4) below for additional discussion.)
    Finally, FMCSA also recognizes that those carriers that were 
subject to the SSRS program will generally pay less under the 2010 fee 
structure than they did under SSRS. More importantly, the UCR Plan 
cannot over-collect the fees. To the extent that it collects more than 
its target revenue amount, the fees

[[Page 21999]]

would be required to be reduced for 2011 to reflect the over-
collection.

Consideration of Three Key Factors

Removal of Trailers From Fee Calculation
Comments
    Many of the State agencies that supported the proposed fees filed 
an identically worded comment stating that because towed units are no 
longer part of the equation for purposes of determining fleet size, 
this factor alone would result in a need for the fees to increase by a 
factor of 1.61. The Missouri Department of Transportation (Missouri 
DOT) said that fee adjustment was necessary to account for the change 
in definition of CMV, noting that Missouri could expect a 38.7 percent 
decline in revenue collection from companies dropping into lower 
brackets as a result of the changed definition.
    Many industry members acknowledged that it would be necessary to 
adjust the fee in response to the statutory change to the definition of 
CMV, but opposed any further adjustment. State commenters were 
generally opposed to this limited approach, arguing that it would cause 
a decrease in revenue.
Response
    See Section V(C)(7) below for additional discussion.
Bracket Shift
Comments
    State agencies and associations argued that it was necessary to 
account for bracket shift in developing the UCR fees because the 
statute allowed motor carriers to exclude from their count of vehicles 
subject to UCR fees those commercial vehicles not involved in 
interstate or international commerce and because UCR does not apply to 
certain vehicles below certain weight ratings. Thus, the net effect of 
motor carriers shifting upward or downward in brackets was roughly 26 
percent less revenue than if the fleet size registered in MCMIS had 
been used to determine UCR fees. The Pennsylvania PUC said that self-
certification by carriers will ``inevitably result in bracket shift,'' 
and that FMCSA had properly included this factor in its fees 
calculation.
Response
    FMCSA agrees that the net effect of bracket shifting has had a much 
greater effect on revenues than had been originally anticipated. By 
statute, motor carriers are allowed to exclude portions of their fleets 
from UCR registration. The inherent discrepancy between the number of 
vehicles in MCMIS and the number of CMVs that carriers may lawfully 
include in their fleet sizes for UCR purposes inevitably results in 
bracket shift independent of the fee calculation methodology used.
    See Section V(C)(4) below for additional discussion.
Improved State Enforcement Efforts
Comments
    Some State agencies commented that they have had to identify the 
universe of entities subject to the program and then to educate 
thousands of motor carriers, motor private carriers, leasing companies, 
freight forwarders, and brokers that were not subject to the SSRS but 
are now subject to UCR fees. The commenters agreed that States will 
need to do more to improve overall compliance. They noted that, under 
the NPRM, approximately 66,000 additional entities will have to be 
registered into the UCR for 2010 to achieve the revenue goal, and that 
this will require States to improve compliance nationally by about 15 
percentage points to reach the compliance goal of 86.42 percent. 
Several of the States, such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan 
also described increased enforcement and educational activities they 
have undertaken and the results they produced.
Response
    FMCSA is encouraged to learn of the States' improved enforcement 
efforts. However, the Agency encourages more States to register 
entities for UCR at the same time as they renew registrations 
(including those for the International Registration Plan (IRP)), obtain 
International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) credentials, and make excise 
tax filings. FMCSA urges States to work closely with FMCSA Division 
Offices to leverage pre-existing targeted enforcement efforts, as well 
as to improve data integrity issues, to make mass mailings and 
notifications more effective. Finally, FMCSA believes that the success 
of the UCR fee program depends on the Board working with States to 
develop outreach strategies and best practices for educating and 
registering carriers. (See the additional discussion in section 
V(C)(2)).
C. Comments Opposing the Proposal
Comments
    Motor carriers and associations representing carriers submitted 
several comments that expressed general opposition to the fee proposal, 
based on a wide variety of arguments. The American Moving & Storage 
Association (AMSA) strongly opposed the fee proposal as ``excessive, 
inappropriate [and] unwarranted.'' United Parcel Service (UPS) said the 
proposed fees represented an ``unreasonable rate of increase.'' The 
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) opposed the proposal because it 
would ``negatively affect the motor carrier industry in order to 
subsidize both non-compliant motor carriers and the states that will 
not put forth the effort to increase UCRA [UCR Agreement] compliance.'' 
TIA called FMCSA's analysis flawed. ATA and TIA both faulted the NPRM 
for giving an impression of ``illusory precision.'' They argued that 
``the unwarranted show of accuracy covers much guesswork and some 
arbitrary assumptions.''
Response
    As discussed in Section III above, the Agency has to recognize and 
implement its primary statutory mandate to enable States to achieve 
their revenue entitlement. Unfortunately, many of the comments 
expressing general opposition to the fee adjustment did not address the 
important issues. General statements of opposition do not present 
compelling arguments about the Agency's statutory mandate. Similarly, 
specific objections do not address the relevant statutory factors the 
Agency must consider. A more detailed discussion of those contentions 
and FMCSA's responses, follows below.
1. Increase Too Large Under Current Economic Conditions
Comments
    One of the most common arguments against the proposed fees, made by 
over one hundred commenters, including many carriers, was that fees 
should not be increased because the trucking industry is suffering from 
the current economic downturn. Industry members commented that fee 
increases might force them to lay off drivers, sell trucks, or even go 
out of business. A number of associations and individual carriers 
complained that FMCSA failed to consider the condition of the economy 
and the ``devastating effect'' the fees increase would have on the 
trucking industry, trucking employment and services and even the 
survival of some trucking companies. AMSA commented that FMCSA had not 
appropriately considered the fact that household goods movers have 
faced a decline in both demand and revenue, forcing many such carriers 
to go out of business. Commenters also complained that shipping rates 
have declined significantly, putting additional economic pressure on 
the industry.

[[Page 22000]]

ATA and TIA commented that the recession has hit the trucking industry 
far worse than many other industries. ATA stated that for-hire 
truckload revenue has plummeted and that for-hire trucking employment 
is at its lowest level in 14 years. The California Trucking Association 
(CTA) also opposed the fee proposal, citing declining freight volumes, 
a number of recently adopted regulations affecting carriers in the 
State, higher diesel prices, and pressures to increase fuel taxes.
Response
    FMCSA does not agree with the numerous commenters who asserted that 
the proposed rule represents too large an increase to be considered 
reasonable under current economic conditions. As discussed in Section 
III above, the statute does not permit FMCSA to consider as relevant in 
determining whether an adjustment in the UCR fees is ``within a 
reasonable range,'' any factor that frustrates the primary purpose of 
providing sufficient revenues for the participating States. Current 
economic conditions are one such factor.
    Nonetheless, FMCSA does not believe that the 2010 fees will have a 
significant economic impact on affected carriers.\6\ In 2007, for 
example, the trucking industry generated revenue of $228,907 million. 
With an estimated inventory of 1,183,000 vehicles generating revenue, 
that total represents average revenue of $193,000 each.\7\ Under the 
fees for Registration Years 2007-2009, in which the maximum fee per 
motor vehicle was $39, the fee accounted for no more than 0.02 percent 
(that is, 1/50th of 1%) of revenue. The 2010 fees (a maximum of $76 per 
power unit) represent less than about 0.04 percent (1/25th of 1%) of 
revenue per power unit. The increase in fees is thus only 0.02 percent 
of revenues--about a fifth of a tenth of 1 percent. This increase is 
very small even relative to the revenues of extremely small carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the Regulatory Analysis and Notices section below, FMCSA 
complies with applicable regulatory policies to determine that this 
final rule is not economically significant. That determination rests 
on a different standard than the statutory factors discussed in this 
section.
    \7\ https://www.census.gov/svsd/www/services/sas/sas_data/48/2007_NAICS48.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data on receipts for individual proprietorships in the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS 484--Truck 
Transportation)--which are assumed to represent the smallest carriers--
show yearly revenue averaging $82,269.\8\ The increase of $37 in the 
fee for one motor vehicle from $39 under the 2007-2009 fees to $76 for 
2010 is an increase of only 0.045 percent, or little less than half of 
a tenth of one percent of the average individual proprietorship 
carriers' revenue. Moreover, the $37 difference between the 2009 and 
2010 fees comes to less than 15 cents per day for a truck used 5 days a 
week for 50 weeks per year. Even if current revenue levels have been 
reduced by current economic conditions, the fee increase is very small 
in relation to such revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A critical point that many commenters ignore is that a significant 
portion of the $37 fee increase in the first bracket is due solely to 
the change in the definition of a CMV. That change alone requires an 
increase of about 62 percent, or $24. The remainder, which is only $13, 
is less than a hundredth of 1 percent of industry average revenue per 
power unit, two-hundredth of 1 percent of the average revenues of an 
individual proprietorship, or 5 cents per power unit per day. For the 
largest carriers this increase has an even lower per-unit effect.
2. State Compliance and Enforcement
a. Responses to NPRM Questions on Compliance
    Question One: FMCSA requested public comment on the reasons for the 
low level of compliance.
Comments
    The Alaska Trucking Association noted that, according to FMCSA, 
only 28 out of 41 participating States actively engage in roadside 
enforcement. The commenter expressed doubt that there is any 
enforcement in the 10 non-participating States. Since there is no 
incentive for non-participating States to conduct UCR enforcement, the 
commenter concluded there is unlikely to be any enforcement in the 
future in those States. Therefore, the reason for the current low level 
of compliance is that ``if there is no reasonable expectation of 
getting caught, there is no incentive to comply.''
    The Alabama PSC supported the 90 percent registration compliance 
factor and noted that ATA had erroneously stated it in its comments as 
80 percent. It said that it had made progress working with FMCSA to 
improve the data on potential registrants, but work still remained to 
be done. It is unreasonable, Alabama PSC argued, to expect the States 
to achieve 100 percent compliance when the Federal data upon which they 
rely are not 100 percent reliable. Alabama PSC would support a higher 
registration compliance factor for non-participating States than the 59 
percent proposed by FMCSA, noting that four of the nine non-
participating jurisdictions in the continental U.S. had already 
achieved this level of registration for 2009 (VT, NJ, OR, and AZ). 
Alabama PSC suggested a factor of 65 to 75 percent.
    The Pennsylvania PUC stated that it believes the current compliance 
rate is a reflection of various factors, including a potentially 
inaccurate carrier population number, the ability of property carriers 
to omit vehicles used solely in intrastate commerce, as well as 
available enforcement and compliance tools. Pennsylvania agreed with 
FMCSA that the compliance rate is higher for larger carriers.
    California Department of Motor Vehicles (California DMV) noted that 
UCR does not require State participation. Participating States retain 
only that amount of the collected UCR fees that equals what they 
previously collected under SSRS. Thus, California collected its 
entitlements in both 2008 and 2009 and sent $300,000 each year to the 
UCR repository for distribution to other States. Because, according to 
California DMV, UCR prohibits the States from collecting any intrastate 
fees from a carrier that pays UCR fees, California would lose over $7 
million in intrastate revenues if California pursued all UCR-defined 
interstate carriers. This dynamic occurs for any State that exceeds its 
UCR revenue cap or collects intrastate fees. Another reason for non-
compliance, California DMV explained, is that ``carriers do not know 
they are non-compliant because they think they are intrastate. A 
massive compliance effort would be required to pursue and convince 
these carriers to pay with little incentive for the States to do so 
because of their capped revenue amounts and their loss of intrastate 
fees when the carriers do pay UCR.''
    California DMV also noted that before UCR was enacted carriers 
could enter information into MCMIS without fear of consequences, since 
no credentials or payments were linked to MCMIS filing with respect to 
numbers of vehicles and whether or not a carrier was interstate. 
Finally, California DMV pointed to the weak compliance efforts of non-
participating States, which may enforce on carriers crossing into their 
States, but do little to enforce on any of their own intrastate 
carriers who meet the UCR definition of interstate.
    The Missouri DOT also said it had identified a number of companies 
within the non-compliant group that were operating only within the 
State borders in intrastate commerce, out of business, not currently 
operating, non-compliant in one or more State motor

[[Page 22001]]

programs (IFTA, IRP, Over Size/Over Weight (OSOW), Operating 
Authority), or placed out-of-service. However, getting these changes 
into the MCMIS system is difficult and sometimes impossible. If 
Missouri could exclude these companies the State's compliance rate 
would be 87.5 percent.
    CVSA cited two reasons for the expected revenue shortfall, the 
prospective change in definition of CMV and bracket shift, and argued 
that lack of enforcement by the States was not a major cause of the 
shortfall. CVSA contended that the States have stepped up efforts to 
enforce the program; and, as of September 2009, the compliance rate had 
reached 72 percent. CVSA noted that early in the program's life an 
outreach effort was necessary to inform carriers that were not required 
to pay under SSRS that they were covered by UCR. In addition, CVSA said 
it was important to note that UCR does not have an enforcement mandate 
and as a result no nationwide enforcement standard has been promulgated 
in rulemaking. In addition, there is no statutory requirement for a UCR 
credential to be carried on board trucks. CVSA also noted that 
inaccurate information in the carrier population database had impeded 
collection efforts. Lists of carriers obtained from MCMIS were not 
current and in some cases led to a 25 percent or greater return rate 
for registration fee notices. States have had to purge the lists of 
carriers that no longer exist.
    Several other comments addressed compliance and how to improve it. 
One pointed out that Connecticut and New Hampshire are requiring proof 
of UCR compliance to renew a registration or obtain IFTA credentials.
Response
    FMCSA specifically takes issue with California DMV's assertion that 
it has a net loss of $5 million because UCR prohibits the States from 
collecting any intrastate fees from a carrier that pays UCR fees. In 
FMCSA's view, this loss of revenue occurs because of the stand-alone 
preemption provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14504a(c) that are not linked to 
registration and payment of fees to the UCR Plan and Agreement. In 
other words, section 14504a(c)(1) precludes any State requirement for 
payment by interstate motor carriers and interstate motor private 
carriers (as defined there) of any of the fees there specified. It 
seems that California would lose these revenues regardless of the 
payment by those carriers of UCR fees; otherwise, California could 
rectify this situation by withdrawing from the UCR Plan under 49 U.S.C. 
14504a(e)(3) and (4), which it obviously has not done. Other issues 
raised by the commenters are addressed in sections V(C)(4), V(C)(5), 
V(C)(6) and V(C)(7).
    Question Two: FMCSA requested public comment on determining the 
reasonableness of the States' enforcement efforts.
Comments
    The Alaska Trucking Association stated that ``at the least'' a 
participating State should demonstrate an ongoing effort to register 
and collect fees, both administratively and through enforcement. The 
commenter also said that non-participating States need to have some 
incentive to perform enforcement.
    Several States described their current efforts to improve 
enforcement. They included assisting each other to reach the collective 
registration compliance goals by developing a communication system to 
alert each State of new concerns and sharing ``best practices.'' The 
Illinois Commerce Commission noted that the State had fulfilled its 
commitments in the UCR State Participation Agreement, registering 
17,523 carriers and achieving a 90 percent registration percentage of 
all ``UCR universe'' carriers in Federal database records, and issuing 
over 1,000 citations in the past 12 months. Massachusetts reported that 
for the past 3 years it had conducted focused enforcement events with 
the Massachusetts State Police, and had worked with FMCSA on data 
integrity issues. The Pennsylvania PUC argued that any attempt to 
increase the compliance rate should recognize the economic realities of 
enforcement among the small fleet carrier population.
    California DMV recommended three actions that would require a 
legislative change to the UCR Agreement. It also suggested a fourth, 
altering the definition of ``interstate carrier'' to match the IRP 
definition (which it believed would not require a statutory change) and 
using the IRP database to calculate the UCR fee structure.
    Missouri argued that using a compliance rate based on the number of 
companies registered is not the correct compliance tool to use. 
Missouri's current 79.6 percent compliance rate accomplishes a 
collection rate of 90.7 percent of the fees that the State believes 
should be collected under the program in the State. In addition, 54 
percent of Missouri's non-filers are in bracket 1 or bracket 2. Without 
a change in the compliance measure, the State could be required to 
spend more in resources to collect a small amount of revenue.
    Kentucky noted that the State had 82 percent compliance for 2008 
and 87.98 percent compliance for 2009. However, over the past 3 years, 
Kentucky had a shortfall of approximately $11 million due to the new 
UCR program and the need to educate motor carriers about the new 
registration program.
Response
    FMCSA notes that State agencies generally support the proposed 
compliance rates. However, some expressed concern that the lower rate 
of 59 percent compliance for non-participating States would not be 
adequate and would favor an increase.
    FMCSA agrees with State comments that the difficulty in obtaining 
UCR compliance is a reflection of various factors, such as the ability 
of carriers to omit CMVs for various reasons, lack of a requirement for 
States to participate in UCR, the difficulty of obtaining compliance 
from non-participating States, and the lack of a requirement for the 
UCR entity to carry a credential. Absent statutory changes that would 
address these issues, FMCSA believes that compliance by carriers from 
non-participating States will continue to be problematic and, 
therefore, the Agency is not increasing its estimate of the non-
participating State compliance rate.
b. Comments on Inadequate State Compliance and Enforcement Efforts
Comments
    A number of commenters opposed increasing UCR registration fees, 
alleging that the States have not undertaken adequate enforcement 
measures to ensure compliance. A number of commenters stated that fees 
should be raised only after the States have achieved adequate 
compliance. ATA and TIA commented that neither FMCSA nor NCSTS has 
recognized how significantly non-compliance has contributed to revenue 
shortfalls, alleging that 19 participating States have not registered 
at least three-quarters of the carriers based within their borders. ATA 
and TIA further commented that non-compliance or evasion is likely a 
major cause of bracket shift, but because States have not performed any 
audits, it is unclear. Another commenter said that FMCSA had erred in 
treating bracket shift and non-compliance as separate subjects. The 
commenter argued that enforcement of accurate carrier registration 
would have a significant impact on the amount of fees collected.
    ATA and TIA said that FMCSA had set an arbitrary and capricious 
standard

[[Page 22002]]

for State enforcement efforts in developing the proposed fees. ATA and 
TIA said that FMCSA made ``a great show'' of including a compliance 
factor, but this must be discounted heavily because the fees proposed 
by the NPRM are almost exactly the same as those recommended to the 
Secretary in February, 2009. The TCA argued that, although 100 percent 
compliance was unlikely, it should be the goal of the program and that 
there should be no increase until the States make a good faith effort 
to register non-compliant entities.
    One commenter urged greater emphasis on ticketing or fining non-
compliant carriers when discovered in roadside or scale inspections. 
Another said that UCR registration should be made part of the annual 
vehicle registration, like the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax, and should 
require proof of compliance before the vehicle can be registered.
    The National Private Truck Council (NPTC) and the Truck Renting and 
Leasing Association (TRALA) faulted the Board and FMCSA for not 
developing audit procedures. The Louisiana Motor Transport Association 
(LMTA) complained that States were not required to demonstrate that 
they could effectively and efficiently administer the program as a 
condition of participation. LMTA suggested that States must first make 
all efforts to collect outstanding revenue prior to requesting an 
increase in fees. The Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association 
(SC&RA) also commented that the States have not done a good job of 
enforcement, with 19 of the UCR States and all 12 of the non-
participating States failing to require registration and payment of the 
fees.
Response
    FMCSA agrees that State enforcement activities, and the levels of 
compliance with UCR registration requirements by the motor carrier 
industry, directly affect the States' revenue, and are therefore 
relevant factors for consideration. The Agency's proposal, as set out 
in the NPRM, clearly expects an increase in the level of enforcement in 
order to produce an increase in compliance (74 FR at 45592-93). The 
Agency recognizes that participating States have made improvements in 
collection rates as enforcement activity has increased. Based on the 
State reports at the Board meetings and data available in MCMIS, FMCSA 
believes that the States have been making a ``good faith effort'' to 
address compliance and enforcement issues. The most recent data from 
MCMIS show that for the first 10 months of 2009, 42 States have issued 
21,223 citations to motor carrier entities for not registering with the 
UCR Plan. This is a significant improvement over the 7,995 citations 
issued by 33 States during the entire previous year of 2008. This is 
clear evidence of an increased level of enforcement activity by the 
States, and compliance by motor carrier entities has improved 
accordingly.
    However, the data also show some disparity in the level of activity 
by the various States, including a few participating States that are 
apparently not issuing roadside citations to unregistered motor 
carriers and other entities. For that reason, the Agency's fee proposal 
reflects an expectation that the participating States as a whole will 
need to register 90 percent (not 80 percent, as incorrectly stated by 
ATA) of the entities required to register in those States in order for 
the revenue entitlements to be achieved. To meet that level, FMCSA 
believes that all of the participating States must, and will, increase 
enforcement activities. This includes roadside enforcement and audits, 
as well as outreach activity with the essential support of the 
industry, to make sure that all motor carrier entities subject to the 
UCR registration requirements are aware of and c