|
|---|
|
Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Byline: Sue Lawless Date: 17 June 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Trucking
Topic: Unified Carrier Registration Plan |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51266-51276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13192]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 367
[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0268]
RIN 2126-AC67
Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the regulations governing the annual registration
fees that participating States collect from motor carriers, motor
private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing
companies for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Plan and Agreement
for the 2025 registration year and subsequent registration years.
Following a reduction in fees of an average of 37.3 percent over the
two prior years, the fees for the 2025 registration year will be
increased above the fees for the 2024 registration year by an average
of 25 percent overall, with varying increases between $9 and $9,000 per
entity, depending on the applicable fee bracket. The final rule is
based upon a recommendation from the UCR Plan.
DATES: Effective date: July 17, 2024.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than July 17, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth Riddle, Director, Office
of Registration and Safety Information, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, FMCSA-MCRS@dot.gov. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dockets
Operations at (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this final rule as follows:
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
B. Costs and Benefits
III. Abbreviations
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments
A. Proposed Rulemaking
B. Comments and Responses
C. Final Rule
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), E.O. 14094
(Modernizing Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Congressional Review Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Assistance for Small Entities
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
H. Privacy
I. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
J. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0268/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this final rule,
then click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
at U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting
Dockets Operations.
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
Under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 14504a, the UCR Plan and the
41 States participating in the UCR Agreement collect fees from motor
carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight
forwarders, and leasing companies. The UCR Plan and Agreement are
administered by a 15-member board of directors (UCR Plan Board), which
is comprised of 14 members appointed from the participating States and
the industry, and the Deputy Administrator of FMCSA, who is a statutory
member.
[[Page 51267]]
Revenues collected are allocated to the participating States and the
UCR Plan.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A)(ii) and (f)(1)(E)(i),
the UCR Plan provides fee adjustment recommendations to the Secretary
of Transportation (Secretary) when revenue collections result in a
shortfall or surplus from the amount authorized by statute. If the
required payments to the States and the cost of administering the UCR
Plan exceed the amount in the depository, the UCR Plan must collect
additional fees in subsequent years to cover the shortfall (49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(1)(E)(i)). If there are excess funds after payments to the
States and for administrative costs, they are retained in the UCR
Plan's depository, and fees in subsequent fee years must be reduced as
required by 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(4). These two distinct statutory
provisions are recognized in the fee adjustment recommended by the UCR
Plan and adopted in this final rule to increase, by an average of 25
percent, the annual registration fees established pursuant to the UCR
Agreement for the 2025 registration year and subsequent years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The UCR Plan Board's recommendation (Sept. 2023 Fee
Recommendation) was transmitted on Sept. 27, 2023, and is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Costs and Benefits
The changes in this final rule increase the fees paid by motor
carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight
forwarders, and leasing companies to the UCR Plan and the participating
States. These fees are considered by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, as transfer payments,
not costs. Transfer payments are payments from one group to another
that do not affect total resources available to society. Therefore,
transfers are not considered in the monetization of societal costs and
benefits of rulemakings. Despite the classification of fees as transfer
payments, the Agency acknowledges that motor carriers, motor private
carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing
companies will incur a greater burden as a result of this fee increase.
III. Abbreviations
ACH Automated Clearing House
CE Categorical Exclusion
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOT Department of Transportation
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FR Federal Register
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPGA National Propane Gas Association
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment
PTA Privacy Threshold Assessment
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA Small Business Administration
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SBTC Small Business in Transportation Coalition
Secretary Secretary of Transportation
UCR Unified Carrier Registration
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This rulemaking adjusts the annual UCR registration fees, as
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 14504a. Section 14504a provides that the
revenues collected from the fees should not exceed the maximum annual
revenue entitlements distributed to the 41 participating States plus
the amount established for administrative costs associated with the UCR
Plan and Agreement. The UCR Agreement is an interstate agreement (as so
defined in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(8)) entered into by 41 participating
States in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14504a(e)(1) and
(2). The statute provides for the UCR Plan to ask the Secretary to make
an adjustment within a reasonable range when the annual revenues are
insufficient to provide the revenues to which the participating States
are entitled (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)(i)).
In addition, 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(4) states that any excess funds
from previous registration years held by the UCR Plan in its
depository, after distribution to the States and for payment of
administrative costs, shall be retained and the fees charged shall be
reduced by the Secretary accordingly.
The UCR Plan must also obtain DOT approval to revise the total
revenue to be collected, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7).
However, no changes in the revenue allocations to the participating
States were recommended by the UCR Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
14504a(g)(4) and therefore, no changes have been authorized by this
rulemaking.
The Secretary also has broad rulemaking authority in 49 U.S.C.
13301(a) to carry out 49 U.S.C. 14504a, which is part of 49 U.S.C.
subtitle IV, part B. Authority to administer these statutory provisions
has been delegated to the FMCSA Administrator by 49 CFR 1.87(a)(2) and
(7).
The two revised and new sections in this final rule work in concert
to adjust the applicability of an existing requirement and impose a new
requirement and are therefore not severable. This is so because if the
increased fees for 2025 in new 49 CFR 367.50 were to be set aside, then
the existing fee levels in 49 CFR 367.40 must remain in effect to
provide funds to allow the participating States to receive their
statutory revenue entitlements during 2025. While the 2024 fees would
not be sufficient to fully cover the 2025 State statutory entitlements
and administrative costs, that revenue would be necessary to provide at
least some portion of the statutory entitlements due to participating
States.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments
A. Proposed Rulemaking
On January 9, 2024, FMCSA published in the Federal Register an NPRM
titled ``Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement''
(89 FR 1053; see also Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0268). The NPRM proposed
amending regulations for the annual registration fees States collect
from motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers,
freight forwarders, and leasing companies for the UCR Plan and
Agreement for the 2025 registration year and subsequent registration
years. The fees for the 2025 registration year were proposed to be
increased from the fees for 2024 by approximately 25 percent overall,
with varying increases between $9 and $9,000 per entity, depending on
the applicable fee bracket. The fee increases will produce revenues of
$13 million that will enable the UCR Plan to provide the funds for the
State revenue entitlements by covering the shortfalls in revenues
resulting from decreases in the fees the prior two registration years,
which averaged 37.3 percent.\2\ The proposal was based upon a
recommendation from the UCR Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The full calculation of the UCR Plan's fee adjustment
indicating shortage in collections is available in the docket for
this rulemaking at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2023-0268-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments and Responses
FMCSA requested public comments concerning the NPRM for 30 days
ending February 8, 2024. By that date, 66 unique comments were
received. Three comments were submitted by trade associations: the
National Owner Operators Association; the National Propane Gas
Association (NPGA), and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition
(SBTC). Two comments were erroneously added to the docket and were
withdrawn, as they addressed issues pertaining to a different
[[Page 51268]]
rulemaking. Sixty small motor carriers and individuals (many of them
anonymous) submitted comments. The UCR Plan submitted a comment
responding to the issues raised by the comments of SBTC.
General Questions
Comments: Many commenters posed questions about the UCR fee, its
purpose, and rationale behind the increase. For instance, an anonymous
commenter claimed that the NPRM and supporting documents published in
the docket ``do not explain to what end the money is used'' beyond the
fact that the UCR's allocated reserves have been depleted. The
commenter further noted that the structure of decreasing and increasing
fees, or ``see-sawing of the tax,'' as the commenter described, is not
very clear. Another commenter suggested there should be a maximum
percentage change in the fee that the UCR Plan can implement.
FMCSA Response: UCR fees are used by participating States for motor
carrier safety programs and enforcement, or the administration of the
UCR Plan and UCR agreement (49 U.S.C. 14504a(e)(1)(B)). When each of
the participating States joined the UCR Agreement, the statute required
them to submit to FMCSA a State plan that, among other matters,
demonstrates that an amount at least equal to the revenue derived by
the State from the UCR agreement shall be used for those motor carrier
safety programs and enforcement, or the administration of the UCR Plan
and UCR agreement (49 U.S.C. 14504a(e)(1)(B)). The statute also gives
primacy to the need to set the fees at a level that ensures that each
of the participating States receive the revenues to which they are
entitled (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)(i) and (g)(4)). The adjustment in
the fees to be paid to the UCR Plan for distribution to the
participating States is necessary to accomplish this statutory
objective.
FMCSA believes this upward adjustment is within a reasonable range,
in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14504a(e)(1) and (2).
This adjustment to the 2025 registration year provides the required $13
million in revenue allocations to the participating States and the UCR
Plan. Any amount short of these adjustments would impede proper
operations of motor carrier safety programs, enforcement, or the
administration of the UCR Plan and UCR agreement. The Agency notes the
rare occurrence of this upward adjustment, which has only previously
occurred once, over a decade ago. This upward adjustment, an
approximately 25 percent increase, follows two years of reductions in
fees affecting the 2023 and 2024 registration years, averaging a 37.3
percent decrease in fees, as well as steady, unmodified collections
from 2010 to 2017. The Agency believes this recalibration of fees is
reasonable and in accordance with the structure of, and obligations
created by, the statute.
Timing of the Fee Increase
Comments: Many commenters viewed the increase in fees as
unwarranted and unexpected, and explained the UCR Plan should be
adjusting its own budget and spending instead. An anonymous commenter
expressed confusion over the increase, claiming that the fees were
intended to be eliminated ``after full reciprocity.'' A different
anonymous commenter connected this increase to the UCR Plan's poor
budgeting, while another suggested the UCR Plan's spending should be
cut instead.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA disagrees with the commenters' statements
that the fee increase was unwarranted, unpredictable, and sudden. In a
previous rulemaking published in March 2023 (and finalized in June
2023),\3\ FMCSA stated it anticipated the UCR Plan would recommend an
upward adjustment in the fees for the 2025 registration year to comply
with the statutory provisions discussed herein. By statute, the UCR fee
is authorized for annual adjustment by FMCSA, either to increase or
decrease the fee to ensure adequate funds to provide participating
States with their revenue entitlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 88 FR 40719 (June 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA also disagrees that the UCR Plan has not been operating
within its budget. To FMCSA's knowledge, the UCR Plan has operated
within its approved budget and in recent years has steadily decreased
registration fees. In fact, this is the first upward adjustment since
2010. The UCR Plan's approved allocation for the costs of
administration of the Plan and Agreement over the last several years
decreased from $5 million per year and is now at $4.25 million. For
these reasons, FMCSA declines to modify the final rule in response to
the commenters' suggested changes.
Finally, the commenter who stated that the registration fees would
be removed ``after full reciprocity,'' did not provide sufficient
information for FMCSA to understand or provide a response on this
issue. In any event, removal of the fees would require Congress to
amend the statute.
Delaying or Reconsidering the Fee Increase
Comments: Twenty-eight commenters either objected to the increase
altogether, expressed criticism towards this proposal, or asked FMCSA
to reconsider it. Among those objecting to the increase altogether, six
commenters described the UCR fee and the proposed percentage increase
as ``unnecessary, unjustified, frivolous, and unethical,'' while others
called it ``fraudulent, unconstitutional, and discriminatory.''
An anonymous commenter questioned the motives behind the UCR fees,
stating that the purpose for the increase is to create a ``slush fund''
for FMCSA. Some other commenters asked the Agency to reconsider the
proposal to issue the increase until truckers' compensation is
increased. One commenter recognized that, while raising fees may be
necessary, the percentage is too high, making the increase ``difficult
to absorb.'' An anonymous commenter suggested looking into fee
decreases instead.
FMCSA response: FMCSA appreciates the concerns and frustrations
expressed by commenters opposed to the fee increase being adopted. The
purpose of this fee increase is to cover the $13 million shortfall in
the statutorily-required funding, because in 2025 making the required
distributions to the States and providing for the cost of administering
the plan and will exceed the revenues expected under the current fee
levels. Although FMCSA must approve the fee levels for each
registration year, FMCSA does not collect these fees and the money does
not go into the Agency's budget. Rather, the fees are collected and
administered by the UCR Plan. In past years, as required by the
statute, these fees were decreased because of excess collections and in
effect returned to the industry.
Despite this increase, the proposed fees are still lower than those
that were in effect in registration years 2019 through 2022.\4\ For
instance, carriers in the smallest fee bracket (i.e., carriers with two
vehicles or fewer), brokers, and leasing companies paid a fee of $62 in
the 2019 registration year and $68 in the 2020 registration year, which
is significantly higher than the proposed fee for 2025 of $46, even
before accounting for inflation. Similarly, the fee for carriers in the
highest fee bracket (i.e., carriers with 1,001 vehicles or more) in
2019 was $59,689, rising to $66,072 in 2020. Again, the fee proposed
for the 2025 registration year, $44,836, is well below those previous
amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To provide more clarity, FMCSA has provided a table
outlining the changes in the UCR Plan fees starting in 2010. The
table is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51269]]
The commenter who contended that the increase was discriminatory
provided no evidence of specific incidents of discrimination or any
other information to support this claim, and based on all the available
information, FMCSA disagrees that it targets or discriminates against
any registrant. The percentage increase is evenly applied across six
fee brackets that correspond to a motor carrier's fleet size, as
permitted by statute and regulation.
For the reasons described above, and because of the statutory
requirement to secure revenue entitlements to the participating States,
FMCSA declines to delay the fee increase or modify the percentage of
the fee increase, as this would result in the revenues falling short of
meeting the statutory requirement.
Reconsidering the UCR Plan's Fee Calculation Methods
Comments: In its public comment, NPGA stated that the ``2025 Fee
Schedule Proposal'' document published in the docket does not provide
sufficient data for proper review. They noted that the UCR Plan has
used two different methods of calculating fees: one relying on the
minimum of the monthly collections over the past three authorized
closed registration years, and the other on the ``average'' method for
the 2023 and 2024 registration years. NPGA suggested returning to the
``average'' method, which resulted in surplus collections in previous
years, or a ``different intermediate method,'' rather than the minimum
method, as proposed in the UCR Plan's recommendation. NPGA also
requested an analysis demonstrating that FMCSA is ``right-sizing''
costs.
FMCSA Response: NPGA's comment concerns the method used to estimate
the amount of additional revenues the UCR Plan will receive during the
last several months of the fee collection period for registration year
2023, which are August 2023 to December 2024. As stated in the fee
recommendation submitted by the UCR Plan,\5\ until its 2023 fee
recommendation, the UCR Board had made fee collection projections for
the remaining collection period based on the minimum monthly
collections for the same period during the past three closed
registration years. According to the UCR Plan, this method consistently
resulted in an underestimation of projected collections. The UCR Plan
Board therefore decided to project collections using an average method
in its recommendations for the 2023 and 2024 registration years.
However, the average method resulted in an overestimation of projected
collections compared to actual collections for the 2023 registration
year. Further, the UCR Board's analysis of the most recent registration
years results indicated an increased risk of overestimation of
projected collections using the average method. Therefore, the UCR
Board voted at its July 27, 2023, meeting to return to the minimum
method of projected collections in the fee recommendations for the 2025
registration year and future years.\6\ In its fee recommendation, the
UCR Plan estimated using this method that it will receive an additional
$5.26 million in fee revenue for registration year 2023 between August
2023 and December 2024. This amount is added to the actual amounts
collected until July 2023, to produce a total revenue collection for
registration year 2023 of $92.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2023-0268-0002
(accessed Mar. 1, 2024).
\6\ The minutes of the UCR Plan Board's July 27, 2023, meeting
are available at https://prod-public-ucr-docs-board-minutes.s3.amazonaws.com/27Jul23%20Board%20Minutes.pdf (accessed
Mar. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA believes that this return to the minimum method of estimating
future collections as part of its fee recommendation is reasonable. The
Agency has no reason to question the UCR Plan's assessment that this
method would avoid increased risk of overestimation of projected
collections. A detailed calculation of the revenue estimate (including
a projection using the minimum method) is also available in the docket
for this rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2023-0268-0003
(accessed Mar. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Concerns
Comments: A group of 21 individual commenters, including several
small owner-operators, expressed concerns about the effect of the fee
increase on the ability for small businesses to continue operating.
They explained that ``mom and pop'' businesses are already struggling
to keep their doors open and this increase would exacerbate their
struggles. To further illustrate their concerns, several commenters
explained that other costs have increased, including maintenance,
insurance, fuel, and other registration fees, while their rates and
income have proportionally decreased. An individual commenter also
expressed concerns over the longevity of small businesses, adding that
this increase would contribute to the trucker shortage issue in the
country, causing disruptions in the supply chain.
FMCSA response: Even for small carriers, the fee increase will
amount to a minimal percentage of each carrier's income. Those in the
smallest bracket (1-2 vehicles) will pay $9 more for an annual
registration in 2025 than in 2024, and those in the next bracket (3-5
vehicles) will pay $27 more. Due to the structure of the fee brackets,
when spread across a carrier's fleet the annual increase ranges from
approximately $9 per vehicle for a motor carrier with the fewest number
of vehicles in its fee bracket (for example, an owner-operator in the
smallest fee bracket registering a single vehicle or a motor carrier in
the largest fee bracket registering 1,001 vehicles). On the other hand,
the increase ranges to less than $1 per vehicle on average for carriers
at the upper bounds of a bracket (for instance, a carrier in the next-
to-largest fee bracket registering 999 vehicles). Regardless of the
size of a carrier, this fee increase will likely represent, and be
offset by, a very small percentage of annual revenue, and as such is
not expected to impact the viability and longevity of motor carriers'
operations.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),\8\ FMCSA has considered the effects of
the regulatory action approved in this final rule on small businesses
and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic
impact. The analysis for this consideration is set out below in the
Regulatory Analysis in section VIII.C. Based on this analysis, FMCSA
has concluded and is certifying that this final rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because the fee increase is less than one percent of the revenues or
costs of small motor carriers and other small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Is Not Beneficial to Consumers
Comments: While many commenters expressed the opinion that this
rulemaking is not beneficial to the trucker or motor carrier, others
drew attention to how the rulemaking would affect the consumer. Eight
individuals explained the fee increase would subsequently trickle down
to the consumer whose purchasing power may be affected. An anonymous
commenter added that the solution to offset the increase by passing the
increase down to the consumer is unreasonable as the increase will
affect everyone (carriers and consumers). The commenter added
[[Page 51270]]
``as a one-truck owner, I don't `transfer' this amount to anyone. I
have to pay it.'' An individual commenter added that although ``this
increase is not a major rule, it will increase the cost of products and
services.''
FMCSA response: While FMCSA recognizes that any fee adjustment may
affect the cost of doing business, the increase in this rule is
statutorily mandated. Moreover, while many commenters are concerned
about the percentage increase (of 25 percent) to the annual
registration fees, the actual dollar amount of the increase is unlikely
to cause significant downstream effects. As discussed above, the fees
would range from a maximum of $9 per vehicle registered on average to
less than $1 per vehicle registered on average, depending on the motor
carrier's fee bracket and the relative size of each carrier's fleet
within that bracket. Thus, the cost passed along to consumers is
expected to be minimal, amounting in most cases to a few cents per
load.
Negative Effect on the Economy
Comments: Besides the commenters' concerns over the effect of the
increase on the carriers and consumers, others stated that the current
economic climate cannot support this type of fee adjustment. Three
commenters added that this rulemaking would affect the economy as a
whole. One commenter stated that the proposal was an attempt to
``cripple the economy and increase inflation.''
FMCSA response: As described above, while the percentage increase
may appear high to some commenters, the amount of the increase is
unlikely to have a material effect on the economy. When viewed on a
per-vehicle basis, the increases do have a greater impact on carriers
at the lower end of each fee bracket than on those at the higher end.
However, the UCR registration fee for 2025 will be, at most, be
approximately $9 more than the prior year for each vehicle in a
carrier's fleet on average if the carrier is among the smallest in its
respective fee bracket. The increase would be far less on a per-vehicle
basis for carriers in the middle or upper range of their fee bracket.
Therefore, as long as a carrier's annual average revenue per vehicle is
at least $900, the increase would have an overall impact of less than 1
percent of the carrier's average annual revenue. Moreover, the fees
under this rule are still less than the fees charged in recent
years.\9\ The historically low fees in the last UCR fee rule
(establishing 2024 fees) were required to address excess revenues; but
returning the fees to an upward adjusted amount is not reasonably
expected to impact inflation or the larger economy. FMCSA also
reiterates that the increase is not discretionary; rather, the UCR fee
adjustments are made pursuant to a statutory mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See footnote 2 linking to the UCR Plan's full calculation
indicating shortage in collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Owner Operators Association's Opposition to the Fee
Increase
Comments: The National Owner Operators Association stated that the
``UCR fee is a duplicative tax'' which should be eliminated, indicating
this rulemaking is proof of ``taxation without representation.'' They
added that FMCSA should revisit its budget and issue a refund for any
existing surplus to businesses the Agency regulates.
FMCSA Response: As discussed above, the fees collected by the UCR
Plan (none of which are paid or otherwise go to FMCSA) are mandated by
a statute enacted by Congress that has been in effect since 2005. Any
change or elimination of the program would require further action by
Congress.
SBTC's Comment Objecting to the Fee Increase
Comments: SBTC objected to the fee increase proposal and questioned
the legal authority of the UCR Plan to invest motor carrier fee money
due to the States. In addition, SBTC contended that the earnings from
the reserve accounts should be applied to reduce the 25 percent fee
increase or by using the UCR's reserve funds to offset the fee
increase, leaving the 2024 fees in effect for 2025, or significantly
reducing the proposed increase amount. SBTC also contended that the
convenience fee charged by the UCR Plan when registrants use a credit
card or an automated clearing house (ACH) transaction to pay
registration fees should be borne by the UCR Plan. An individual motor
carrier commenter supported SBTC's recommendation that the UCR Board
find an alternative revenue source to offset the increase, which would
not require the carriers to pay more.
1. The UCR Plan's Authority To Establish Reserve Funds
SBTC commented that the UCR Plan has invested its funds in various
investment accounts for the purposes of creating reserves, which SBTC
characterized as ``slush funds.'' SBTC added that it found no
directive, statutory authority, or regulatory permission for the UCR
Plan to engage in such activities for their self-enrichment. In
response to SBTC's comments, the UCR Plan submitted a detailed response
setting out its authority under the statute to administer the UCR Plan
and Agreement, including the responsibility to provide funds to
recognize the timing of revenue receipts, and for use in case of
revenue shortfalls or similar circumstances. These additional funds are
intended to sustain the UCR Plan's operations. The UCR Plan also added
that, in a previous rulemaking, FMCSA had ``recognized the prudence and
appropriateness of the reserve funds.'' \10\ Moreover, the UCR Plan
explained its responsibility to provide for its consistent and
continuous operation, which partly entails providing sufficient reserve
funds. It stressed the importance for such reserve funds to be
available for use in emergencies, as they sustain the financial
operations of the UCR Plan and explained that the availability of
reserve funds is prudent, appropriate, and consistent with the UCR
Plan's statutory obligation to administer the UCR Plan and Agreement.
The UCR Plan also explained in depth how, contrary to SBTC's
assertions, the interest earned by the reserve accounts was already
being used to provide funds either for the revenue allocations for the
participating States or to pay a small portion of the Plan's
administrative costs, thus reducing the amount of additional revenues
required from the recommended adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 87 FR 53680, 53686 (Sept. 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA Response: The issue SBTC raised was considered and addressed
by FMCSA in a previous final rule adopting fees for registration year
2023.\11\ After thorough consideration, FMCSA recognized the prudence
and appropriateness of these reserve funds, finding that ensuring the
availability of reserve funds to meet possible contingencies is an
appropriate action for the UCR Plan Board to take in implementing the
statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UCR Agreement is an interstate agreement with the purpose of
coordinating the registration and collection of fees and information
from motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers,
freight forwarders, and leasing companies, whose commercial vehicles
are engaged in interstate commerce. The Board of Directors of the UCR
Plan is tasked by statute with administering the UCR Agreement.\12\
This responsibility
[[Page 51271]]
requires the UCR Plan Board to provide for the consistent and
continuous operation of the UCR Plan. Part of fulfilling that
responsibility entails providing sufficient reserve funds to enable the
UCR Plan and its National Registration System to operate without
interruption in the unanticipated event of a significant unbudgeted
increase in operating expenses and/or decrease in operating revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 49 U.S.C. sections 14504a(a)(8), 14504a(a)(9), and
(d)(2)(B). The last paragraph of the statute states that the board
of directors shall provide for the administration of the unified
carrier registration agreement. See also 12 Percent Logistics, Inc.
v. Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board, No. 17-cv-02000 (APM),
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17160 at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of the need for reserve funds arises from a provision of
the statute that states that revenues collected may not be used to pay
administrative costs until all the participating States have received
all their revenue entitlements (49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(3)(B)). As a legal
matter, during a registration year, none of the funds collected can be
used for current operations of the UCR Plan in administering the UCR
Agreement until all the distributions from current revenues from fees
have been made from the depository to the States that have not received
their full revenue entitlements. As a result of complying with this
statutory requirement, at the beginning of each year's operations, the
Plan is not receiving any funds budgeted for the administration of the
UCR Agreement and cannot carry out its statutory obligations unless
funds are available and held elsewhere. If there is then a revenue
shortfall during the registration year, the reserve fund can be used to
continue the administration of the UCR Agreement.
As explained in its comment, the UCR Plan maintains four investment
accounts containing reserve funds dedicated for specific operational
purposes in order to ensure continuity. These reserve funds are a
portion of the unrestricted net assets of the UCR Plan that are
available for use in emergencies to sustain financial operations. In
the UCR Plan Board's view, ensuring the availability of reserve funds
to meet possible contingencies is a prudent and appropriate action to
take in implementing the UCR Act and is consistent with the UCR Plan
Board's statutory obligation to administer the UCR Plan Agreement. This
explanation conforms with FMCSA's reading of the statutory provisions
discussed above and the important necessity of having reserve funds
available in order to ensure payment of statutory entitlements to the
participating States and carry out the administrative obligations of
the UCR Plan.
For these reasons, and the additional reasons set out in the final
rule establishing the 2023 fees (see 87 FR at 53685-86), the UCR Plan
has authority under the statute to establish and maintain the reserve
funds at issue.
2. The Use of Interest Earnings
Comments: SBTC made and repeated several different comments
regarding the UCR Plan's use of interest earnings from the reserve
funds and other accounts the Plan has established. SBTC contended that
the UCR Plan has benefitted from financial gain from the ``questionable
practice of investing and possibly risking motor carriers' fees due to
the States.'' It also contended that the investment proceeds should be
passed on to the States and FMCSA should credit the industry by
offsetting the 25 percent fee increase. SBTC added that revenues should
not be ``permanently and indefinitely retained'' beyond recovering
administrative expenses ``through bona fide lawful rulemaking.''
In response to SBTC's comments, the UCR Plan stated that it
intentionally maintains ``physically separate accounts'' for State-owed
funds (used to provide revenue for distribution to the 41 participating
States), administrative funds, and reserve funds. Funds in these
accounts are invested in separate investment vehicles in accordance
with the Plan's adopted Investment Policy.
The UCR Plan stated that all interest earnings on State-owed funds
are distributed to the 41 participating States, and interest earnings
from State-owed funds have not been used as administrative funds, nor
added to the reserve funds. Both administrative and reserve funds
remain in their respective accounts and are not distributed to the 41
States. Interest earnings from these two accounts are not included in
the UCR fee calculation at this time. But the UCR Plan explained that
once the reserve funds are fully funded, which they anticipate will
occur by the end of calendar year 2024, any excess administrative funds
and interest from that fund will be used to reduce the Board's request
to FMCSA for administrative funds in the next operating year.
FMCSA Response: In summary, interest earned on the accounts holding
State-owed funds are already added to the fee revenues in that account
and then distributed to the States. Those interest earnings are not
retained by the UCR Plan but are used to reduce the amount of fee
revenues needed to make the required distributions to the participating
States. SBTC's characterization of these interest earnings as a ``slush
fund'' for the benefit of the UCR Plan and not the participating States
is inaccurate.
Interest earned in the administrative fund is used for
administrative costs and is not retained by the UCR Plan. The interest
earnings also reduce the amount of fee revenue required to pay the
administrative costs of operating the UCR Agreement and the Plan. The
statute expressly authorizes the use of fee revenues for such purpose,
once all the required distributions have been made to the participating
States (49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(3)(B)). The amount for administrative costs
for registration year 2025 included in the total revenue required from
fees is $4.25 million out of the total of $112.0 million, or 3.79
percent.
3. Using Interest Earnings To Level Off 2025 Registration Fees
Comments: SBTC commented that FMCSA should consider the UCR Plan
revenue generated from investments and review whether the revenue
generated in previous years and from investments is sufficient to
relieve the increase in the 2025 registration year. The UCR Plan
responded that the excess State-owed funds from the 2023 year were
included in the calculation of the recommended fee for the 2025
registration year. The UCR Plan also clarified that the interest
generated by the investments amounted to $311,000, representing only a
small fraction of the $112 million fee revenue target for 2025. Since
the inclusion of the $311,000 in the 2025 fee calculations would not
have changed the fee assessment for carriers in the smallest fee
bracket and would have reduced the fee assessed for the largest
carriers by only $130, the UCR Plan stated it made the decision to
include the $311,000 generated during 2023 in the 2026 registration
year fee calculation.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA finds reasonable the UCR Plan's explanation
that interest earnings on the reserve funds are already taken into
account in determining the proposed fees for 2025 and subsequent years.
This is currently the case for interest earned on the funds held for
distribution to the States, which will be applied to the 2026
registration year to adjust the fee revenues needed to ensure that the
participating States receive their statutory revenue entitlements. When
the remaining reserve funds are fully funded, interest earned on those
accounts will also be accounted for in the fee recommendations. FMCSA
finds it reasonable for the UCR Plan to fully fund its reserves prior
to distributing the interest earned on those accounts, thereby not
using the interest earnings
[[Page 51272]]
to provide an additional offset to the revenues to be provided by the
fees for registration year 2025. FMCSA further finds it reasonable for
the UCR Plan to account for interest earned on the administrative funds
account by reducing its request for administrative funds in future
years, once the reserve accounts are fully funded.
4. Convenience Fees for Credit Card and ACH Payments
Comments: SBTC raised a separate issue regarding the UCR Plan's
practice of passing on to registrants the convenience fees charged by
banks when a registrant uses a credit card or ACH transaction to pay
the annual registration fees. SBTC characterizes such transaction fees
as ``surcharges.'' SBTC claims that this practice is not authorized by
FMCSA. It also claims that the UCR Plan retains this revenue, invests
it, and retains the investment income, and states that those
convenience fees should be paid out of the UCR Plan's administrative
allowance authorized by FMCSA.
In response to SBTC's claims, the UCR Plan explained that when a
registrant chooses to use a credit card or ACH transaction to pay the
annual registration fee, this is accompanied by a convenience fee, not
a surcharge, ``to defray a portion of the costs to the UCR that
accompany the use of an electronic payment method by the motor
carrier.'' Furthermore, the UCR Plan noted that paying UCR registration
fees using a credit card or an ACH transaction is a voluntary decision
the motor carrier or registrant makes, which could be avoided by using
a check or money order.
The UCR Plan explained that the convenience fee generated from a
credit card payment is calculated differently than the fee for an ACH
payment, as the former is a percentage of the annual registration fee
and the latter is a fixed amount. Since the UCR plan cannot accurately
project how many motor carriers or other registrants will choose to pay
the annual registration fee using a credit card versus ACH transaction,
including the convenience fees as part of the UCR Plan's annual
operating budget risks overcharges to the motor carrier or registrant
if the UCR Plan overestimates the costs, and financial shortfalls for
the UCR Plan if the UCR Plan underestimates the costs.
Second, the UCR Plan explained that including an estimate of the
cost of providing for electronic payments by motor carriers and other
registrants in the administrative fund request would force one group of
registrants to subsidize another group of registrants. The UCR Plan
noted this would be unfair to registrants that complete payment using
money orders or checks--methods which do not include a convenience fee,
unlike credit card and ACH payment methods. The UCR Plan concluded
that, due to the factors explained in its response, the fairest and
most accurate way to cover the cost of using an electronic payment
method is charging the convenience fee separately to those who chose to
utilize that option.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA accepts the UCR Plan's handling of
convenience fees for credit card and ACH transactions to pay fees. The
UCR Plan has shown that it would be difficult to accurately estimate
the amount of such convenience fees and, moreover, that it would be an
unfair burden on registrants that chose not to use credit cards or ACH
transactions.
5. Request for Issuance of Guidance on the UCR Plan's Investment of
Funds
Comments: SBTC also requested in its comment that FMCSA issue
guidance on whether the UCR Plan is authorized under law or regulation
to invest motor carrier fees and under what risk-level circumstances
they may do so.
The UCR Plan clarified in response that all reserve funds are
invested according to the Board-approved UCR investment policy,
available by link on the UCR Plan website Policies and Procedures
page.\13\ The UCR Plan further noted that the Board has set ``prudent
guidelines designed to provide an appropriate risk-adjusted rate of
return on all UCR assets.'' It also referred to the response to SBTC's
comment for detailed discussion of the UCR Plan's authority to
establish reserve funds, the importance of maintaining them, to what
end interest earnings are used, and how the interest earnings are
recognized in the recommended registration fees (discussed above in the
section entitled ``The Use of Interest Earnings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Available on the internet at https://plan.ucr.gov/policies-procedures/ (accessed Mar. 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA response: FMCSA has reviewed and considered both SBTC's and
the UCR Plan's comments in this rulemaking, including the UCR Plan's
investment policy, in determining the appropriateness of the proposed
fee increase. Issues raised include the UCR Plan's use of investment
funds and alternatives to the upward adjustment suggested by SBTC and
others. Based on the comments other and information submitted to the
docket, FMCSA finds the actions of the UCR Plan reasonable and
adequately supportive of the proposed rule. Requests for additional
Agency action, including issuance of guidance on appropriate UCR fee
investments, are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Out of Scope Comments
Comments: FMCSA received a few additional comments concerning
issues beyond the scope of the proposed rule. Some comments related to
the need for regulations on broker transparency, safe parking, speed
limits on interstate highways, among other topics which the commenters
identified as more beneficial to the industry.
FMCSA response: FMCSA appreciates the commenters for raising these
issues, and for stressing their importance. However, as they do not
pertain to this rulemaking, FMCSA has not taken these comments into
consideration or modified the final rule based upon these comments.
C. Final Rule
FMCSA appreciates the commenters' feedback regarding this
rulemaking and has taken all within-scope comments into consideration.
For the UCR Plan to secure both the funds for required distribution of
statutory entitlements to all participating States and the funds for
administration of the UCR Agreement, the UCR Plan must generate
sufficient revenue, which can only be accomplished by a fee increase,
as permitted, and required, by the UCR statute. The upward adjustment
in fees for the 2025 registration year will provide an additional $13
million to meet the overall statutory revenue requirement of $112
million. The UCR statute provides for the UCR Plan to request an
adjustment in the fees, within a reasonable range, by the Secretary
when the fees will be insufficient to provide the annual revenue
entitlements to which the participating States are entitled (49 U.S.C.
14504a(f)(1)(E)(i)).
FMCSA also notes that in a final rule published in 2023, the Agency
had anticipated adjusting the fees for the 2025 registration year,
after receiving the necessary recommendation from the UCR Plan, as the
previous excess collections would be largely utilized.\14\ In addition,
this is the first upward adjustment since 2010, following two years of
fee decreases, which, combined, resulted in an average 37.3 percent fee
reduction, and no adjustments from 2010 to 2017. The fee levels for the
2025 registration year are still less than the fees that were in effect
from 2019 to
[[Page 51273]]
2022. For those reasons, FMCSA finalizes the proposed increase without
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 88 FR 40719 at 40720 (June 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
FMCSA revises 49 CFR 367.40 (which was adopted in the 2023 final
rule) so that the fees apply to registration year 2024 only. A new
Sec. 367.50 establishes new increased fees applicable beginning in
registration year 2025, based on the recommendation submitted by the
UCR Plan in its September 2023 Fee Recommendation. The fees in new
Sec. 367.50 will remain in effect for subsequent registration years
after 2025 unless revised by a future rulemaking.
FMCSA also removes 49 CFR 367.20, which set the fees for 2020,
2021, and 2022, as those fee amounts will not be necessary.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), E.O. 14094
(Modernizing Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563
(76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review, E.O. 14094 (88 FR 29179, Apr. 11, 2023) Modernizing Regulatory
Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, as stated in section 3(f) of E.O.
12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and amended by E.O. 14094, does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that
E.O.
The final rule increases the registration fees paid by motor
carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight
forwarders, and leasing companies, which fund both the administration
of the UCR Plan and Agreement and the statutory entitlements to the
participating States. Therefore, under this rule, these entities face
increased costs in the form of increased fees. However, while each
motor carrier or other entity will incur an increased burden, fees are
considered by OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, as transfer
payments, not costs. Transfer payments are payments from one group to
another that do not affect total resources available to society. By
definition, transfers are not considered in the monetization of
societal costs and benefits of rulemakings. In this case, increased
fees to motor carriers are equivalent to revenue to participating
States. Nevertheless, the Agency acknowledges that motor carriers,
motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and
leasing companies will incur greater costs. The details of the amount
of increase to the annual UCR fee for each fee bracket, are included in
the discussion above in Section VI.
This rulemaking will establish increases in the annual registration
fees for the UCR Plan and Agreement. The entities affected by this rule
are the participating States, motor carriers, motor private carriers of
property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. Because
the State UCR revenue entitlements will remain unchanged, the
participating States will not be impacted by this rule. The primary
impact of this rule will be an increase in fees paid by individual
motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight
forwarders, and leasing companies. The increase in fees for the 2025
registration year from the 2024 registration year fees (approved on
June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40179)) will be an average of 25 percent, ranging
from $9 to $9,000 per entity, depending on the number of vehicles owned
or operated by the affected entities.
B. Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as defined under the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A major rule means any rule that OMB finds has resulted in
or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; (b) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, Federal,
State, or local government agencies; or (c) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
markets (5 U.S.C. 802(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., RFA), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA),\16\ requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of
the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to
minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities
includes small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5
U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the
impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies
strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking will directly affect the participating States,
motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight
forwarders, and leasing companies. Under the standards of the RFA, as
amended by SBREFA, the participating States are not small entities.
States are not considered small entities because they do not meet the
definition of a small entity in section 601 of the RFA. Specifically,
States are not considered small governmental jurisdictions under
section 601(5) of the RFA, both because State government is not
included among the various levels of government listed in section
601(5), and because, even if this were the case, no State or the
District of Columbia has a population of less than 50,000, which is the
criterion by which a governmental jurisdiction is considered small
under section 601(5) of the RFA.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) size standard for a
small entity (13 CFR 121.201) differs by industry code. The entities
affected by this rule fall into many different industry codes. In order
to determine if this rule will have an impact on a significant number
of small entities, FMCSA examined the 2012 and 2017 Economic Census
data for two different North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) industries: Truck Transportation (subsector 484) and Transit
and Ground Transportation (subsector 485).
As shown in the table below, the SBA size standards for the
national industries under the Truck Transportation and Transit and
Ground Transportation subsectors range from $19.0 million to $43.0
million in revenue per year. To determine the percentage of firms that
have revenue at or below SBA's thresholds within each of the NAICS
national industries, FMCSA examined data from the 2017 Economic
Census.\17\ In instances where 2017 data were suppressed, the Agency
imputed 2017 levels using data from the 2012 Economic Census.\18\
Boundaries
[[Page 51274]]
for the revenue categories used in the Economic Census do not exactly
coincide with the SBA thresholds. Instead, the SBA threshold generally
falls between two different revenue categories. However, FMCSA was able
to make reasonable estimates as to the percentage of small entities
within each NAICS code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Economic Census. Table
EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM--Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for
the U.S.: 2017. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-48-49.html (accessed Dec. 5,
2023).
\18\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 Economic Census. Table
EC1248SSSZ4--Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series--Estab &
Firm Size: Summary Statistics by Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.:
2012 Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/census/transportation-warehousing.html (accessed Dec. 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentages of small entities with annual revenue less than the
SBA's threshold ranged from 96.3 percent to 100 percent. Specifically,
approximately 96.3 percent of Specialized Freight (except Used Goods)
Trucking, Long Distance (484230) firms had annual revenue less than the
SBA's revenue threshold of $34.0 million and will be considered small
entities. FMCSA estimates 100 percent of firms in the Mixed Mode
Transit Systems (485111) national industry had annual revenue less than
$29.0 million and will be considered small entities. The table below
shows the complete estimates of the number of small entities within the
national industries that may be affected by this rule.
Table 3--Estimates of Number of Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA size
NAICS code Description standard in Total number Number of Percent of all
millions of firms small entities firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
484110............... General Freight Trucking, $34.0 22,066 21,950 99.5
Local.
484121............... General Freight Trucking, 34.0 23,557 23,045 97.8
Long Distance, Truckload.
484122............... General Freight Trucking, 43.0 3,138 3,050 97.2
Long Distance, Less Than
Truckload.
484210............... Used Household and Office 34.0 6,097 6,041 99.1
Goods Moving.
484220............... Specialized Freight 34.0 22,797 22,631 99.3
(except Used Goods)
Trucking, Local.
484230............... Specialized Freight 34.0 7,310 7,042 96.3
(except Used Goods)
Trucking, Long Distance.
485111............... Mixed Mode Transit 29.0 25 25 100.0
Systems.
485113............... Bus and Other Motor 32.5 318 308 96.9
Vehicle Transit Systems.
485210............... Interurban and Rural Bus 32.0 309 302 97.7
Transportation.
485320............... Limousine Service........ 19.0 3,706 3,694 99.7
485410............... School and Employee Bus 30.0 2,279 2,226 97.7
Transportation.
485510............... Charter Bus Industry..... 19.0 1,031 1,013 98.3
485991............... Special Needs 19.0 2,592 2,567 99.1
Transportation.
485999............... All Other Transit and 19.0 1,071 1,059 98.9
Ground Passenger
Transportation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, while FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking will
impact a substantial number of small entities, it has also determined
that the rulemaking will not have a significant impact on them. The
effect of this rulemaking will be to increase the annual registration
fee that motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers,
freight forwarders, and leasing companies are currently required to
pay. The increase will be 25 percent on average, $9 to $9,000 per
entity, depending on the number of vehicles owned and/or operated by
the affected entities.
While the RFA does not define a threshold for determining whether a
specific regulation results in a significant impact, the SBA, in
guidance to government agencies, provides some objective measures of
significance that the agencies can consider using. One measure that
could be used to illustrate a significant impact is labor costs;
specifically, whether the cost of the regulation exceeds 1 percent of
the average annual revenues of small entities in the sector. Given that
entities owning between 0 and 2 commercial motor vehicles would
experience an increase of $9, a small entity would need to have average
annual revenue of less than $900 to experience an impact greater than 1
percent of average annual revenue. This is an average annual revenue
that is smaller than will be required for a firm to support one
employee. The increased fee amount and impact on revenue increase
linearly depending on the applicable fee bracket.
Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist
small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better
evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking
initiative. If the final rule will affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Small businesses
may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or
otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to SBA's Small
Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of
the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman) and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-
FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small
entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy
against retaliation for exercising these rights.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $192 million (which is the value equivalent
of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2022 levels) or more
in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not result in such an
expenditure, and the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply as a
result, the Agency discusses the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
[[Page 51275]]
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial
direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking
discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law
or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact
Statement.
H. Privacy
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,\19\ requires the Agency
to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. This rule will not require the collection of
personally identifiable information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5
U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,\20\ requires Federal agencies to
conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially
changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates
information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed
technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a
result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec.
17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment
(PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might
have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable
information. The PTA was adjudicated by DOT's Chief Privacy Officer on
April 17, 2024.
I. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
J. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
FMCSA analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action
is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2, paragraph 6.h. The categorical
exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6.h. covers regulations and actions taken
pursuant to regulation implementing procedures to collect fees that
will be charged for motor carrier registrations. The proposed
requirements in this rule are covered by this CE.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 367
Intergovernmental relations, Motor carriers, Brokers, Freight
Forwarders.
Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend Title 49 CFR, subtitle B,
chapter III, part 367 as follows:
PART 367--STANDARDS FOR REGISTRATION WITH STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 367 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13301, 14504a; and 49 CFR 1.87.
Sec. 367.20 [Removed and reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 367.20.
0
3. Revise Sec. 367.40 to read as follows:
Sec. 367.40 Fees under the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement for Registration Year 2024.
[[Page 51276]]
Table 1 to Sec. 367.40--Fees Under the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement for Registration Year
2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
Number of commercial motor for exempt or non-
vehicles owned or operated by exempt motor Fee per entity
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor for broker or
carrier, motor private carrier, private carrier, leasing company
or freight forwarder or freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1...................................... 0-2............................. $37 $37
B2...................................... 3-5............................. 111 .................
B3...................................... 6-20............................ 221 .................
B4...................................... 21-100.......................... 769 .................
B5...................................... 101-1,000....................... 3,670 .................
B6...................................... 1,001 and above................. 35,836 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. Add Sec. 367.50 to read as follows:
Sec. 367.50 Fees Under the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement for Registration Years Beginning in 2025 and Each Subsequent
Registration Year Thereafter.
Table 1 to Sec. 367.50--Fees Under the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement for Registration Years
Beginning in 2025 and Each Subsequent Registration Year Thereafter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee per entity
Number of commercial motor for exempt or
vehicles owned or operated by non-exempt motor Fee per entity
Bracket exempt or non-exempt motor carrier, motor for broker or
carrier, motor private carrier, private carrier, leasing company
or freight forwarder or freight
forwarder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1...................................... 0-2............................. $46 $46
B2...................................... 3-5............................. 138 .................
B3...................................... 6-20............................ 276 .................
B4...................................... 21-100.......................... 963 .................
B5...................................... 101-1,000....................... 4,592 .................
B6...................................... 1,001 and above................. 44,836 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Sue Lawless,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-13192 Filed 6-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P