United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

May 25, 2007 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chairman 

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, 

 Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Subject: Unified Motor Carrier Fee System: Progress Made but Challenges to 

Implementing New System Remain 

The congressionally established unified carrier fee system was not implemented before its 

predecessor, the Single State Registration System, expired thereby preventing states from 

collecting fees from for-hire motor carriers and other related entities. The Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) mandated that a new unified carrier fee system replace the Single State Registration 

System, which expired on January 1, 2007.1

 The Single State Registration System annually 

provided 38 states with about $100 million in total fees collected from for-hire interstate 

motor carriers. States used revenue collected from this system to supplement general funds 

and conduct safety-related services. Unlike the Single State Registration System, the new 

system broadened the base of those expected to pay fees to include exempt for-hire motor 

carriers, private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. 

To develop and administer this new fee system, Congress established a Board of Directors. 

This board is also tasked with administering a federal-interstate Unified Carrier Registration 

Agreement (UCRA), and issuing rules and regulations to govern this agreement. The 

Secretary of Transportation appoints the board, which consists of the Deputy Administrator 

of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and representatives from 

participating states and the motor carrier industry. The Secretary also ultimately sets the 

fees and has delegated this responsibility to FMCSA. 

 

You asked us to examine the progress that the board and the Department of Transportation

have made in implementing the unified carrier fee system and any implications resulting 

from the status of its implementation. Specifically, we undertook this study to (1) describe

steps taken to implement the unified carrier fee system and the current status of

 1

Current legislative proposals exist to temporarily reinstate the Single State Registration System.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
implementation, (2) identify factors contributing to the delay in implementing the unified

carrier fee system, and (3) identify any potential implications resulting from the delay in 

implementing the unified carrier fee system. 

To describe the steps taken to implement the unified carrier fee system and to determine the 

status of its implementation, we attended five board meetings and reviewed drafts of the 

UCRA and other board documents, such as meeting minutes. To identify the factors 

contributing to a delay in implementing the unified carrier fee system, we interviewed key 

FMCSA officials and 7 of the 15 board members.2

 To identify potential implications resulting 

from a delay in implementing the unified carrier fee system, we surveyed the 37 states that 

are planning to participate in the new system. We asked the extent to which the delay in 

implementing the new system has hindered certain state operations on a 5-point scale, 

ranging from very greatly hindered to little or not at all. Twenty-eight states responded. We 

conducted our work from September 2006 through April 2007 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

On March 27, 2007, we briefed your staff and the staff from the Senate Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine 

Infrastructure, Safety and Security on the results of our analysis. This report formally 

conveys and updates the information provided in that briefing (see app. I). In summary: 

• The Board of Directors and FMCSA have taken a number of steps to implement the 

unified carrier fee system; however, certain key steps remain incomplete and a 

specific date for implementation is not yet clear. On May 12, 2006, the Department of 

Transportation completed its process to select board members and announced the 

board’s composition. Since then the board has taken several steps to implement the 

new system. The board drafted procedures to govern the collection and distribution 

of fees paid by all entities covered under the new system. In addition, the board 

identified a state, Texas, to administer a Web site for registering all motor carriers 

during the initial year of the unified carrier fee system, until individual states can 

develop their own systems in subsequent years. On April 17, 2007, however, the 

Texas Department of Transportation informed the board that it would not host this 

Web site since handling the data for the states would result in an unacceptable level 

of liability to the state. Texas officials offered to transfer the development of its Web 

site to any other state that would be interested in hosting the registration system. 

Finally, the board developed a recommended fee structure. During this time, FMCSA 

provided the board with financial and technical assistance, such as preparing and 

posting official notices of board meetings in the Federal Register. A number of key 

steps, however, have not been completed, and no timeline for finalizing these steps 

has been set. The board has not designated a depository to hold revenues generated 

by the unified carrier fee system and distributes those revenues to participating 

states. In addition, the board has not yet completed development of a registration 

Web site. Finally, the Secretary of Transportation has not set fees. The board 

reported its recommended fee structure to the Secretary of Transportation on 

December 6, 2006. According to FMCSA officials, FMCSA sent the chair and vicechair of the board a letter on December 21, 2006, that stated that the board’s initial 

fee memorandum lacked information it viewed as essential for it to complete its rulemaking process. In response, the board submitted a revised fee structure dated 

 2

We sought to interview all 15 board members and 7 agreed to meet with us. 

Page 2 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
March 23, 2007. FMCSA accepted this revised fee structure on April 2, 2007, and is 

drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to formally set the fees. 

• The amount of time taken for start-up actions left insufficient time to implement the 

unified carrier fee system before the Single State Registration System expired. In 

addition, the amount of time required to publish the proposed fees and issue final 

rules could cause further delays. SAFETEA-LU allowed 17 months—from August 

2005 to January 2007—to implement the new system before the Single State 

Registration System expired. These 17 months included 90 days for the Secretary of 

Transportation to set fees. During the first 9 months (August 2005 to May 2006), the 

Secretary of Transportation appointed a Board of Directors. FMCSA officials told us 

it took time to identify potential board members and make sure there would be a 

balanced composition that complied with SAFETEA-LU requirements. During the 

following 7 months (May 2006 to December 2006), the board completed the analysis 

required to estimate the number of affected motor carriers and related entities3

 and 

developed a fee structure to generate about $106 million in needed revenues.4

 The 

board and FMCSA took additional time to resolve two fee-related issues related to 

implementing the new fee system. First, the board interpreted SAFTEA-LU as 

allowing them to charge unified carrier fees to all motor carriers, including those 

operating in nonparticipating states, but FMCSA did not determine until April 2 that 

SAFTEA-LU allows the board to charge fees to those motor carriers operating in 

nonparticipating states. Second, the board based its initial fee structure on the 

estimated number of power units operated by affected motor carriers, but FMCSA 

officials explained that SAFETEA-LU specifies that commercial motor vehicles be 

used as the basis for the fee structure.5

 The board’s revised fee structure that FMCSA 

accepted in April uses commercial motor vehicles as its basis.6

 Lastly, now that the 

board and FMCSA agree on the fee proposal, the amount of time required to set the 

fees could cause further delays. SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to obtain public comment before setting new registration fees. Under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, FMCSA would accomplish this by publishing a 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, providing a period for allowing comments to the 

proposal, analyzing those comments, and adopting and publishing a final rule. Also, 

FMCSA officials told us that since the unified carrier fee system has an economic 

 3

The estimation of the number of affected entities required the board to filter data in FMCSA’s Motor Carrier 

Management Information System to identify active motor carriers from which it could expect to collect a fee.

The board found that this database contained over 700,000 motor carriers, but was unreliable in part because it 

included inactive motor carriers. 

4

The approximately $106 million in revenue is a sum of the $101 million entitled to participating states that

were part of the Single State Registration System, $5 million for administrative costs, and $500,000 to Oregon 

for joining the new system. 

5

Power units are self-propelled motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicles are vehicles that are selfpropelled or towed, such as trailers. 

6

FMCSA interpreted SAFETEA-LU as permitting it to delay starting the 90-day period allowed for fee setting 

until it believed the board provided a recommendation that sufficiently explains the basis for its fee proposal. 

It is unclear, however, if FMCSA’s interpretation of the SAFETEA-LU 90-day fee-setting period is correct since

SAFETEA-LU does not specifically authorize the Secretary of Transportation to delay this procedure. A 90-day 

period measured from when the board submitted its original fee recommendation on December 6, 2006, would 

have elapsed on March 6, 2007. FMCSA informed the board that the 90-day period for setting fees based on the

revised recommendation began on April 2, 2007.

Page 3 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
impact more than $100 million, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will 

have to review both the proposed and final rules. FMCSA officials acknowledge that 

it could be difficult to complete this procedure within the required 90 days. 

• Some state officials told us that the delay in implementation has hindered their ability 

to acquire revenues, and thus regulate motor carriers and improve safety. Twentyfive of 28 states that responded to our survey indicated that a delay in implementing 

the unified carrier fee system hindered their ability to acquire revenues, and 22 states 

indicated that this was a great or very great hindrance. Since the Single State 

Registration System expired and no new system took its place, states that collected 

fees under Single State Registration System have not yet been able to collect these 

fees during 2007. If implementation of the unified carrier fee system is not completed 

by the end of 2007, FMCSA officials said it is unlikely that states could recoup fees 

not collected to date. In addition, 23 of 28 states reported that the delay hindered 

their ability to regulate motor carriers, and 13 states indicated that this was a great or 

very great hindrance. For example, Washington state officials reported that it had to 

scale back its transportation regulation, such as safety audits of commercial motor 

vehicles, drivers, and companies, by approximately 20 percent. Finally, 19 of 28 

states reported that the delay hindered their ability to improve safety programs, and 9 

states indicated that this was a great or very great hindrance. Moreover, further delay 

could jeopardize safety and enforcement programs in certain states. For example, 

Michigan reported that if replacement funding is not secured by July 1, 2007, its entire 

enforcement program, including the federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, 

will likely shutdown.7

Prior to our March 27, 2007, briefing, we provided the Department of Transportation with 

the briefing document and incorporated technical comments at that time. Since then the 

Department of Transportation has reviewed the draft report and did not have any comments 

on it. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available 

to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 

brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 

to this report are listed in appendix I. 

Kay E. Brown, 

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

 7

The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program is a federal grant program that provides financial assistance to 

states to reduce the number and severity of accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial

motor vehicles. 

Page 4 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 

Unified Carrier Fee System: Progress Has Been Made, but 

Implementation Delays May Hinder States’ Ability to

Regulate Commercial Motor Vehicles

Briefing for

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,

and Related Agencies and

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and 

Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security

Page 5 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 2

Introduction

• The Single State Registration System annually provided 38 states

with about $100 million in total fees collected from for-hire

interstate motor carriers. Motor carriers paid these fees and

provided information on insurance to states upon registering. States used revenue collected from this system to supplement

general funds and conduct safety-related services.

• The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) mandated that a new

unified carrier fee system replace the Single State Registration

System, which expired on January 1, 2007.

• Unlike the Single State Registration System, the new system

broadened the base of those expected to pay fees to include

exempt for-hire motor carriers, private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. (See enclosure I for a 

definition of each entity).

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 3

Introduction

• To develop and administer this fee system, Congress established 

a Board of Directors. This board will also administer a federalinterstate Unified Carrier Registration Agreement (UCRA), and 

issue rules and regulations to govern the UCRA.

• The Secretary of Transportation appoints the Board of Directors, which consists of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA) representative and representatives from participating 

states and the motor carrier industry, and ultimately sets the fees. 

• The Single State Registration System expired, but the unified

carrier fee system was not implemented by January 1, 2007,

preventing the collection and distribution of fees to states until the 

new system is in place.1

1 Current legislative proposals exist to temporarily reinstate the Single State Registration System.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 4

Objectives

• Based on interest from the Senate Appropriations Committee, we 

began work on this issue. This briefing will:

• describe steps taken to implement the unified carrier fee

system and the current status of implementation,

• identify factors contributing to the delay in implementing the 

unified carrier fee system, and

• identify any potential implications resulting from the delay in 

implementing the unified carrier fee system. 

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 5

Scope and Methodology

• To describe the steps taken to implement the unified carrier fee system

and to determine the status of its implementation, we attended four

board meetings, and reviewed drafts of the UCRA and other board 

documents, such as meeting minutes. 

• To identify the factors contributing to a delay in implementing the unified 

carrier fee system, we interviewed 7 of the 15 board members and key FMCSA officials. 

• To identify potential implications resulting from a delay in implementing the unified carrier fee system, we surveyed the 37 states that are

planning to participate in the new system. We asked the extent to which 

the delay in implementing the new system has hindered certain state 

operations on a 5-point scale, ranging from very greatly hindered to little 

or not at all. Twenty-eight states responded. 

• We conducted our work from September 2006 through March 2007 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Note: After we provided this briefing, we continued our work through April 2007. 

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 6

Results in Brief

• The Board of Directors and FMCSA have taken a number of

steps to implement the unified carrier fee system; however,

certain key steps remain incomplete and a specific date for

implementation is not yet clear.

• The time taken for start-up actions, such as appointing board

members and recommending a new fee structure, left insufficient 

time to implement the unified carrier fee system on time. In

addition, unresolved issues over key elements of the board’s 

recommended fee structure and the time required to publish the 

proposed fees and issue final rules could cause further delays.

• The delayed implementation of the unified carrier fee system has

hindered some participating states’ ability to acquire revenues

and thus, regulate motor carriers, and improve the quality of safety programs. According to state officials, further delay could jeopardize safety programs in some states.

Note: After we provided this briefing, the board and FMCSA resolved the issues related to the board’s recommended fee structure. 

Page 10 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 7

Background: SAFETEA-LU Created a New

System for Collecting Fees from Motor Carriers

• In August 2005, SAFETEA-LU replaced the Single State

Registration System with a unified carrier fee system, requiring the motor carrier industry to pay fees to states that chose to

participate.

• This new system was created to lower the burden on for-hire

interstate motor carriers while ensuring that states receive their

revenues by spreading registration fees to private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies.

• Participating states that were part of the Single State Registration 

System are entitled to continue receiving the amount of fees they collected under the old system in registration year 2004, plus an 

allocation to cover expected intrastate registration fees. 

• States that were not part of the previous system can receive up to 

$500,000 per year if they choose to participate under the new 

system.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 8

Background: FMCSA, States, and Motor

Carriers Play a Role in the New System

• SAFETEA-LU specified that:

• A 15-member Board of Directors governs the system. 

• The board is made up of a representative from FMCSA, and 

representatives from participating states, and the motor carrier

industry.

• The board is charged with: 

• developing and administering an agreement among the parties,

• developing and recommending a new fee structure, and

• developing a method for distributing collected revenues to 

participating states. 

• SAFTEA-LU charged the Secretary of Transportation with setting the 

fees and any subsequent changes to those fees within 90 days after

receiving the board’s recommendation—a responsibility the Secretary

delegated to FMCSA.

Page 12 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 9

Background: New System Revenues to Be Used for

Safety, Enforcement, or Administration

• SAFETEA-LU restricts participating states’ use of 

revenues generated under the unified carrier fee system. 

These revenues may be used only for:

• motor carrier safety programs,

• motor carrier enforcement programs, or

• administration of the unified carrier fee system.

• States may use these revenues as matching funds for 

federal commercial motor carrier safety purposes. 

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 10

Objective 1: FMCSA and the Board Have Taken 

Steps to Implement the New System

• On May 12, 2006, the Department of Transportation completed its

process to select board members and announced the board’s

composition.

• Between June 2006 and March 2007, the board met almost monthly and:

• Determined the amount of fees states participating in the Single

State Registration System collected in registration year 2004 and 

established total state entitlement (referred to as the “cap”), as

specified in SAFETEA-LU. 

• Estimated the number of motor carriers and other entities that are 

covered under the new system.

• Identified states that would participate in calendar year 2007 (37 

states).

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 11

Objective 1: Most States Will Participate in

the New System in 2007

Participating 

Nonparticipating

Source: FMCSA.

Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not participating. 

According to FMCSA, 41 states plan to participate 

in 2008. 

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 12

Objective 1: FMCSA and the Board Have Taken 

Steps to Implement the New System (cont’d)

The board also:

• Drafted procedures to govern the collection and distribution of

fees paid by for-hire and private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies.

• Identified a state to administer a Web site for registering all 

motor carriers during the initial year of the unified carrier fee 

system, until individual states can develop their own systems 

in subsequent years. Texas volunteered to develop this initial 

system.

• Developed an initial recommended fee structure, which it

reported to the Secretary of Transportation on December 6, 2006, and a revised fee structure in March 2007. The board 

considered a number of factors in developing this structure 

such as equity among motor carrier entities with different fleet

sizes.

Note: After we provided this briefing, Texas officials informed the board that it would not host a registration Web site. 

Page 16 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 13

Objective 1: FMCSA and the Board Have Taken 

Steps to Implement the New System (cont’d)

• The board formulated a fee structure to generate over 

$106 million in revenues. The approximately $106 million

in revenue is a sum of the $101 million entitled to 

participating states that were part of the Single State 

Registration System, $5 million for administrative costs, 

and $500,000 to Oregon for joining the new system.

Page 17 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 14

Objective 1: FMCSA and the Board Have Taken 

Steps to Implement the New System (cont’d)

• During this time, FMCSA provided assistance to the board.

• FMCSA provided approximately $60,000 in financial assistance to 

pay for meeting space and travel because the board does not have

funding for its activities until fees are collected.

• In January 2007, however, FMCSA informed the board it would

no longer fund these costs given budget constraints. The March 

2007 board meeting was held via teleconference. Until the board 

begins to collect fees, it has no specific funding for its

administrative costs, such as travel and setting up an electronic

fund transfer system.

• FMCSA provided technical assistance and consultation in areas

such as the board’s responsibility to notify the public of its meetings and factors to consider when developing a fee structure.

• FMCSA prepared and posted official notices of board meetings in

the Federal Register.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 15

Objective 1: Key Steps Remain Incomplete 

and a Date for Implementation is Not Clear

• As of March 23, 2007, a number of key steps had not been completed:

• The board had not designated a depository to hold revenues generated

by the unified carrier fee system and distribute them to participating states.

• The Texas Department of Transportation had not completed

development of the registration Web site. 

• The Secretary of Transportation had not set fees. According to FMCSA, it sent the chair and vice-chair of the board a letter on December 21, 2006, that stated that the board’s initial fee memorandum lacked

information it views as essential for it to complete its rule-making

process.

2 FMCSA asked the board for this information. The board had

not yet submitted a new fee structure.

• No timeline for finalizing these steps had been set.

2 Some members of the board, however, told us that they were not aware of FMCSA’s request for more information until the board’s meeting in mid-January.

Note: After we provided this briefing, FMCSA accepted a revised fee structure on April 2, 2007, and is drafting a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to formally set the fees. In addition, the Texas Department of Transportation informed the board on April 17, 2007, that the 

state will not host the registration Web site. 

Page 19 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 16

Objective 2: The Time Taken for Start-up Activities 

Left Insufficient Time to Finalize the New System

• The length of time taken to complete certain key start-up activities

contributed to not having an implemented unified carrier fee system by January 1, 2007. (See enclosure II for a timeline of key events).

• SAFETEA-LU allowed 17 months to implement the new system before

the Single State Registration System expired—from August 2005 to 

January 2007. This time frame included 90 days for FMCSA to set fees.

• During the first 9 months (August 2005 to May 2006), the Secretary of 

Transportation appointed a Board of Directors. FMCSA officials told us it 

took time to identify potential board members, make sure there would be

a balanced composition that complied with SAFETEA-LU requirements, and invite members to participate.

• During the following 7 months (May 2006 to December 2006), the board 

estimated the number of affected motor carriers and related entities and

recommended a new fee structure.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 17

Objective 2: The Time Taken for Start-up Activities 

Left Insufficient Time to Finalize the New System

(cont’d)

• Estimating the number of motor carriers and related entities required several

steps:

• The board used FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System

(MCMIS) database to estimate the number of active motor carriers from

which it could expect to collect a fee. This included determining both the 

overall population of motor carriers and their fleet size. 

• The board found that FMCSA’s MCMIS database that contained 712,837 

motor carriers was unreliable in part because it included inactive motor 

carriers. As a result, the board used MCMIS to identify as active those

interstate motor carriers that had some roadside or audit activity (roadside

inspections, reportable crashes, or a safety review) within a 30 month 

period. In response to FMCSA concerns about this number, the board

worked with FMCSA to identify additional fields in MCMIS to ultimately identify about 350,700 motor carriers.

• From that subset, the board added 14,575 active brokers and freight

forwarders in FMCSA’s License and Insurance System database.

• Ultimately, the board estimated that states might be able to collect fees from

about 365,000 companies.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 18

Objective 2: Unresolved Issues 

Regarding the Fee Structure May 

Contribute to Further Delay

• Given its legal responsibility to set the fee, FMCSA officials 

explained that SAFTEA-LU states that the Secretary of

Transportation also has the responsibility to review the basis for the 

fees and consider the same factors that the board considered to 

ensure compliance with the law. 

• The board and FMCSA have not completely resolved two feerelated issues:

• Carriers in nonparticipating states paying fees:

• The board interpreted SAFTEA-LU as allowing them to charge

unified carrier fees to all motor carriers. Under the Single

State Registration System, states collected fees from all for- hire interstate motor carriers. 

• As of March 19, 2007, FMCSA had not yet determined 

whether SAFTEA-LU allows the board to charge fees to motor 

carriers operating in nonparticipating states.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 19

Objective 2: Unresolved Issues 

Regarding the Fee Structure May 

Contribute to Further Delay

• Fees based on power units:

• The board based its initial fee structure on the estimated 

number of power units operated by affected motor carriers 

since power units were used as the basis for the Single State 

Registration System. Power units are self-propelled motor 

vehicles.

• FMCSA officials explained that SAFETEA-LU specifies that

commercial motor vehicles be used as the basis for the fee 

structure. The law defines commercial motor vehicles as those 

vehicles that are self-propelled or towed. These vehicles

include self-propelled vehicles and accompanied towed 

vehicles, such as trailers. 

• Thus, the board developed a revised fee structure based on 

the number of self-propelled and towed vehicles in the fleet. 

On March 15, 2007, the board met and voted on this new 

recommended fee structure and plans to submit this revised

fee structure soon.

Note: After we provided this briefing, the board and FMCSA resolved these issues. When FMCSA accepted the revised fee structure on 

April 2, 2007, it recognized that the board could charge fees to motor carriers operating in nonparticipating states. 

Page 23 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 20

Objective 2: Unresolved Issues Regarding

Fees May Contribute to Further Delay (cont’d)

• The board’s revised fee structure recommendation:

Fleet size Percent of industry Fee Revenue

• Bracket 1 0-2 50.0% $ 39 $7,128,498

• Bracket 2 3-5 20.0 116 8,457,560 

• Bracket 3 6-20 20.0 231 16,893,030

• Bracket 4 21-100 7.7 806 22,524,476

• Bracket 5 101-1,000 2.1 3,840 29,548,800

• Bracket 6 1,001+ 0.2 37,500 22,762,500

Total 100.0% $107,314,864

Source: Unified carrier fee system Board of Directors. 

Page 24 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 21

Objective 2: Unresolved Issues Regarding

Fees May Contribute to Further Delay (cont’d)

• FMCSA interprets SAFETEA-LU as permitting it to delay starting the 

90-day period allowed for fee setting until it believes the board 

provides a recommendation that sufficiently explains the basis for its

fee proposal. 

• FMCSA officials told us they have authority to set fees without 

regard to the board’s recommendations; however, the officials said

they would prefer to resolve any issues collaboratively with the

board.

• It is not clear that FMCSA’s interpretation of the SAFETEA-LU 90- day fee-setting period is correct. SAFETEA-LU does not specifically

authorize the Secretary of Transportation to delay this procedure. 

• A 90-day period measured from when the board submitted its

original fee recommendation on December 6, 2006, would have

elapsed on March 6, 2007.

Note: After we provided this briefing, FMCSA informed the board that the 90-day period for setting fees based on the revised 

recommendation began on April 2, 2007. 

Page 25 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 22

Objective 2: Rule-making Requirements Are 

Likely to Contribute to Further Delay

• According to FMCSA, the need to follow the Administrative Procedure Act in

finalizing the new system fees may contribute to further delay.

• SAFETEA-LU required the Secretary of Transportation to obtain public

comment before setting new registration fees.

• Under the Administrative Procedure Act, FMCSA would accomplish this by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, providing a period for 

allowing comments to the proposal, analyzing those comments, and

adopting and publishing a final rule. 

• Also, because the unified carrier fee system has an economic impact more 

than $100 million, FMCSA officials believe the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) will have to review both the proposed and final rules. 

• FMCSA officials said it would be difficult to complete this procedure within

the required 90 days. They said OMB review alone usually takes 90 days. 

Page 26 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 23

Objective 3: State Officials Told Us the Delay Has Hindered

Their Ability to Acquire Revenues, and Thus Regulate Motor

Carriers and Improve Safety Programs

• The delay has hindered states’ ability to acquire revenues and thus regulate 

motor carriers and improve safety programs, according to state officials we 

surveyed.

• Acquire revenues - Twenty-five of 28 states that responded to our survey

indicated that a delay in implementing the unified carrier fee system hindered

their ability to acquire revenues, and 22 states indicated that this was a great or

very great hindrance. Because the old system expired and no new system took

its place, states that collected fees under the old system have not yet been able

to collect these fees during 2007.

• For example, as of January 2007, Illinois had collected $129,211 in fiscal

year 2007 motor carrier receipts, although normally it would have collected

over $2 million by this time.

• If implementation of the unified carrier fee system is not completed by the

end of 2007, FMCSA officials said it is unlikely that states could recoup fees

not collected to date.

Page 27 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 24

Objective 3: State Officials Told Us the Delay Has Hindered 

Their Ability to Acquire Revenues, and Thus Regulate Motor

Carriers, and Improve Safety Programs (cont’d)

State officials reported that this delay in receiving motor carrier fee revenue has

also affected the ability to regulate motor-carrier activities and improve safety

programs.

• Regulate motor carriers - Twenty-three of 28 states reported that the delay 

hindered their ability to regulate motor carriers, and 13 states indicated that this

was a great or very great hindrance.

• Washington state officials reported that Washington state has had to scale 

back its transportation regulation such as safety audits of commercial

motor vehicles, drivers, and companies by approximately 20 percent. 

• Improve safety programs - Nineteen of 28 states reported that the delay

hindered their ability to improve safety programs, and 9 states indicated that

this was a great or very great hindrance. States also reported that the delay 

has moderately hindered their ability to improve the quality of safety programs.

• Michigan officials stated that as a result of a projected shortfall of $4.2 

million, state police had to curtail commercial motor vehicle safety and 

enforcement programs.

Page 28 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees

 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 25

Objective 3: State Officials Told Us the Delay Has Hindered 

Their Ability to Acquire Revenues, and Thus Regulate Motor

Carriers, and Improve Safety Programs (cont’d)

• Moreover, further delay could jeopardize safety and enforcement 

programs in certain states. 

• For example:

• Illinois has projected that it will not be able to pay for 64

highway safety employees if it does not receive its fiscal year

2007 revenues. 

• Louisiana officials stated that if replacement funding is not 

obtained within the next few months, the state will have to 

begin layoffs of highway enforcement agents.

• Some states are more affected than others. 

• Michigan reported that if replacement funding is not secured 

by July 1, 2007, its entire enforcement program, including the 

federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, will likely

shutdown.

Page 29 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 26

Enclosure I: Motor Carrier Industry Entity

Definitions

• Motor carrier - A person who operates a commercial motor vehicle in the interstate

transportation of goods or passengers for compensation.

• Exempt for hire – A person who operates a commercial motor vehicle in the

transportation of property or passengers exempt from economic regulation by the FMCSA, such as cotton and figs, for compensation.

• Motor private carrier - A person who uses a commercial motor vehicle to provide 

interstate transportation of property in which it has a property interest, including an owner, 

lessee, for the purpose of sale, lease, or rent or to further a commercial enterprise.

• Broker - A person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, who sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out for selling, providing, or

arranging transportation by motor carrier for compensation.

• Freight forwarder - A person other than a carrier who provides transportation of property for compensation in the ordinary course of business. Freight forwarders assemble and 

consolidate shipments, assume responsibility for shipments from receipt to destination, but 

they use the services of others to provide actual carriage.

GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System 
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 27

Enclosure II: Timeline of Key Events

Source: GAO analysis of board and FMCSA data.

Note: After we provided this briefing, FMSA accepted the board’s revised fee recommendation and informed the board that the 90-day

period for setting fees based on the revised recommendation began on April 2, 2007. 

Page 31 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
Appendix I: GAO Briefing to Senate Subcommittees 

March 27, 2007 GAO Briefing 28

Contact Information

• GAO Contact

• Kay Brown, (202) 512-2834, brownke@gao.gov

• Staff Acknowledgments

• Catherine Colwell, Samer Abbas, and Alex Lawrence made 

significant contributions to all aspects of this report.

(542103) 

Page 32 GAO-07-771R Unified Carrier Fee System
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER