Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45583 

(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. 

8. Amend section 9.407–3 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

9.407–3 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. 

* * * * * 

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: 

52.209–XX Information Regarding 

Responsibility Matters. 

As prescribed at 9.104–7(b), insert the 

following provision: 

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. 

(End of provision) 

[FR Doc. E9–21174 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

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 http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may also 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45584 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1This 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). 

2The Senate bill’s provisions were enacted ‘‘with 

modifications.’’ H. Conf. Rep. No. 109–203, at 1020 

(2005). 

3The 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). 

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 http://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 http://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

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 

Bracket 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45586 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4The membership of the Subcommittee is shown 

in Appendix BB of the April 3 transmittal. 

5The 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. 

6Under 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(B)(iii), five of the 

fifteen members of the board are ‘‘from the motor 

carrier industry.’’ 

TABLE 2—UCR REGISTRATION SUMMARY 2007 TO 2009 * 

Registration year State revenue 

entitlement 

Entities 

registered 

Revenue 

received 

Revenue 

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 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 http:// 

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 

Bracket 

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 

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

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45587 

7The District of Columbia, which is not 

participating, is considered a State for this purpose 

(49 U.S.C. 13102(21)). 

8Pennsylvania 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). 

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 

Bracket 

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 

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. 

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 

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 

Total 2010 UCR 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45588 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

9Pursuant to 49 CFR 390.19 Motor carrier 

identification report, a motor carrier must file its 

update of the MC–150 form every 24 months. 

10See figures 13 and 14 as shown on page 8 of 

the April 3, transmittal. 

TABLE 5—STATE UCR REVENUE

ENTITLEMENTS—Continued 

State 

Total 2010 UCR 

revenue 

entitlements 

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 

TABLE 5—STATE UCR REVENUE

ENTITLEMENTS—Continued 

State 

Total 2010 UCR 

revenue 

entitlements 

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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45589 

11A 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. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BOARD POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 2010 

Bracket 2008 Full 

universe 

2008 

Registered 

2008 

Percent (%) 

registered 

2010 Full 

universe 

2010 

Population 

(A) (B) (C) = B/A (D) (E) = D x C 

1 .................................................... Brokers & Freight Forwarders ...... 16,457 2,630 16.0 16,457 2,630 

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 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. 

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

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 http:// 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 

http://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. http:// 

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

MCMIS Bracket 

Paid 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 

MCMIS Bracket 

Paid 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 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) 

Bracket 

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 

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 ........................


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45592 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 11—ALTERNATIVE FEE PROPOSAL FOR 2010 (NO. 2) 

Bracket 

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 

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 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 

0–2 ................................................................................................... $39 267,144 $10,418,616 $63 $16,830,072 

3–5 ................................................................................................... 116 76,499 8,873,884 188 14,381,812 

6–20 ................................................................................................. 231 56,321 13,010,151 374 21,064,054 

21–100 ............................................................................................. 806 17,260 13,911,560 1,304 22,507,040 

101–1000 ......................................................................................... 3,840 3,513 13,489,920 6,213 21,826,269 

1001+ ............................................................................................... 37,500 276 10,350,000 60,671 16,745,196 

Total .......................................................................................... .................... 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 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45593 

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 .............................................................. 383,000 90% 344,700 90% 344,700 

Non-Participating States ...................................................... 50,000 80% 40,000 59% 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 Number of CMVs Current 

fee 

Current 

fee times 

2.54 

1 ............................................................................................ 0–2 ....................................................................................... $39 $99 

2 ............................................................................................ 3–5 ....................................................................................... 116 295 

3 ............................................................................................ 6–20 ..................................................................................... 231 587 

4 ............................................................................................ 21–100 ................................................................................. 806 2,047 

5 ............................................................................................ 101–1,000 ............................................................................ 3,840 9,754 

6 ............................................................................................ 1,001 and above .................................................................. 37,500 95,250 

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 

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 

the data uncertainties associated with 

them. However, FMCSA does not 

believe that the Subcommittee provided 

convincing support or justification for 

this assumption. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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

Bracket 

Active 

carriers 

(MCMIS)* 

Current fee 

per entity 

Maximum 

revenue 

by bracket 

1** ........................................................................................................................................................ 218,829 $39 8,534,331 

2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 89,773 116 10,413,668 

3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 85,058 231 19,648,398 

4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 30,716 806 24,757,096 

5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 8,118 3,840 31,173,120 

6 ........................................................................................................................................................... 785 37,500 29,437,500 

Total .............................................................................................................................................. 433,279 .................... 123,964,113 

* 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 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45595 

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 

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 Number of CMVs Current fee 

2009 fee 

times 

2.22432 

1 ........................................................................................ 0–2 ................................................................................... $39 $87 

2 ........................................................................................ 3–5 ................................................................................... 116 258 

3 ........................................................................................ 6–20 ................................................................................. 231 514 

4 ........................................................................................ 21–100 ............................................................................. 806 1,793 

5 ........................................................................................ 101–1,000 ........................................................................ 3,840 8,541 

6 ........................................................................................ 1,001 and above .............................................................. 37,500 83,412 

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. 

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 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45596 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

12The 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. http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/ 

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 

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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45597 

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

Bracket 

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 

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 ..............................

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 

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 

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 http://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 

Federal e-Rulemaking portal http:// 

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 http:// 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS