[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43405-43409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18180]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 669
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2009-0098]
RIN 2125-AF32
Certification of Enforcement of the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule sets forth updated FHWA procedures for enforcement
of the State registration of vehicles subject to the Heavy Vehicle Use
Tax (HVUT). This rule will bring FHWA's HVUT regulations up-to-date to
be consistent with many changes that have impacted the regulation over
the last 2 decades.
DATES: Effective Date: October 25, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Erickson, Highway Funding and
Motor Fuels Team Leader, Office of Policy, HPPI-10, (202) 366-9235, or
Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0791,
Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may retrieve comments online through the Federal Docket
Management System at: http://www.regulations.gov. Regulations.gov is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission
and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section
of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the
Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html and the Government Printing Office's
Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
In the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Congress
established the HVUT. The purpose of the tax is to impose a road use
charge that has some relation to the costs caused by the vehicle
(heavier vehicles cause more road damage than light vehicles, and
therefore should pay a higher highway funding contribution). The FHWA
Cost Allocation studies \1\ demonstrated that damage to the roadway,
resulting from a doubling of the weight of a vehicle, caused an
exponential increase in the amount of damage to the roadway than would
have been caused by a lower weight. To compensate for this additional
damage (costs occasioned), Congress established the HVUT as a way to
recover from those vehicles the additional costs they impose. The HVUT
imposes a tax on vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 55,000 pounds
and over using a sliding scale up to $550 per year payable to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). When the HVUT has been paid, the
vehicle is eligible to be registered by the State. Provisions allow for
temporary and partial-year vehicle registrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Report on the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study:
Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States
Congress Pursuant to Section 506, Public Law 95-599, Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, May 1982 and 1997 Federal Highway
Cost Allocation Study: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, August 1997. Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, August 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA's responsibility in the administration of the HVUT is to
ensure that the States are obtaining proof-of-payment of the HVUT
before registering these vehicles to operate on the roadways. The
agency published regulations at 23 CFR Part 669 implementing the
requirements of this program as established by Federal law at 23 U.S.C.
141(c). In accordance with this Federal law, a State's annual
apportionment of Interstate Maintenance funds under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4)
may be reduced by up to 25 percent in any fiscal year during which
heavy vehicles subject to HVUT may be lawfully registered in the State
without having presented proof-of-payment of the tax. Part 669
established a certification program to ascertain State compliance with
these requirements,
[[Page 43406]]
procedures for evaluating State compliance, and procedures for any
required reduction of funds. This rule modifies existing FHWA
procedures for enforcement of the State registration of vehicles
subject to the HVUT. The regulation is consistent with several changes
in applicable law and technology, and with regulations recently
promulgated by the IRS.
History
The HVUT tax was imposed by section 143 of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Public Law 97-424, and is
codified as 23 U.S.C. 141, which provides for State certification of
enforcement of laws respecting maximum vehicle size and weight. The
amendment added a provision to section 141 that provides that a State's
annual apportionment of Interstate Maintenance funds may be reduced by
up to 25 percent in any fiscal year during which heavy vehicles subject
to the HVUT may be lawfully registered in the State without having
presented proof-of-payment of the tax.
On July 14, 1986, the FHWA published in the Federal Register (51 FR
25363) a final rule implementing the requirements of this statute in 23
CFR Part 669--Enforcement of Heavy Vehicle Use Tax. The notice set
forth procedures to be followed by each State for certifying that it is
obtaining evidence of proof-of-payment of the Federal heavy vehicle use
tax in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 141 for vehicles subject to the use
tax imposed by section 4481 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, before such vehicles are lawfully registered in the State. An
annual certification of compliance is required. Procedures are
specified for reducing a State's apportionment of highway funds in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 141 in the event a State fails to meet the
requirements of the regulation.
Over the decades since 1986, the IRS has updated its procedures for
implementing the HVUT proof-of-payment. The current regulations, found
in 26 CFR 41.6001-2,\2\, entitled proof-of-payment for State
registration purposes, sets forth circumstances under which a State
must require proof-of payment of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 4481(a),
and the required manner in which such proof-of-payment is to be
received by the State as a condition of issuing a registration for a
highway motor vehicle. A State must either comply with the provision of
this section, or comply with other, alternative rules regarding the
satisfaction of proof-of-payment requirement as may be prescribed by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner in order to avoid a
reduction of Federal-aid highway funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 23
104(b)(4). This FHWA final rule provides compatibility with the revised
IRS rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 26 CFR part 41 subpart A, entitled Introduction, subpart B
entitled Tax on Use of Certain Highway Motor Vehicles, and Subpart
C, entitled Administrative Provisions of Special Application to Tax
on use of Certain Highway Motor Vehicles, sections 41.0-1, 41.4481--
41.4483-7, and 41.600101--41.6156-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Comments
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal
Register on November 30, 2009, at 74 FR 62518. The comment period
closed on March 1, 2010. The Docket received comments from five
different organizations: (1) The Office of Congressman Don Young, (2)
the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, (3) the State of
Pennsylvania, (4) the Minnesota Office of the Commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety, and (5) the International Registration
Plan, jointly representing several unidentified States which concurred
with their comments.
General Comments
The first commenting organization, the Office of Congressman Don
Young; Alaska, indicated that constituents in Alaska are frustrated by
an Alaskan requirement that individuals register their vehicle in
person in order to show written documentation of HVUT payment. In
Alaska, this evidence of documentation is required to complete Alaska
DMV Form 846, the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Declaration. Other vehicles can
be registered online while vehicles subject to HVUT cannot. Alaska
urges that changes be made in FHWA regulations to allow individuals to
register vehicles subject to HVUT online.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. FHWA's role
in administering the HVUT is to validate that the States are exercising
their responsibility to assist in the administration of this tax as
mandated by Congress and administered by the IRS. The FHWA does support
the development of procedures by which the HVUT tax can be more
effectively and efficiently enforced.
Sections 669.1, 669.2, 669.9, and 669.13
Two commenting organizations, the State of Pennsylvania
(Pennsylvania) and the International Registration Plan, Inc. (IRP),
expressed their support of the proposed changes related to sections
669.1, 669.2, 669.9, and 669.13. Both organizations indicated that
these proposed changes provide updated references to other laws,
regulations, and related documents.
Section 669.7 Certification Requirement
Two commenting organizations, IRP and Pennsylvania, expressed their
support of the proposed changes to section 669.7 as it would provide
FHWA with time needed to review certifications and determine if States
met their responsibilities. Both commenting organizations stated that
the change would not place an undue burden on States. The IRP also
offered that this change would help match other certifications
currently submitted by States to FHWA.
Section 669.11 Certification Submittal
One commenting organization, the State of New York--Department of
Motor Vehicles (New York), indicated that they have no objection to the
proposed change in the certification deadline from July 1 to January 1.
Another commenting organization, Minnesota--Department of Public
Safety, Office of the Commissioner (Minnesota), requested clarification
on how FHWA will phase in the new regulation. Specifically, the
commenter indicated that if this final rule is adopted before July 1,
2010, it is unclear how or whether States' eligibility for fiscal year
2011 apportionment would be determined, since they will not be
certifying compliance until January 1, 2011 (ostensibly for the period
from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010). Additionally, if FHWA
does not adopt the proposed rules until after October 1, a question
would arise as to whether States would have to certify compliance for
the 4-month gap created by the change in certification periods (i.e.,
for the period from June 1 to September 30, 2009).
Since this final rule will become effective after July 1, 2010,
States will comply with the existing rule for the certification due on
July 1, 2010. This final rule will be applicable starting with the
certification due on January 1, 2011, and that first certification
would only cover the 4-month period of June 1 through September 30,
2010. The annual certification due on January 1, 2012, would cover a
full 12-month period of October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.
Subsequent annual certifications would likewise cover the 12-month
period ending the previous September 30.
[[Page 43407]]
Section 669.21 Procedure for Evaluating State Compliance
Two commenting organizations, Pennsylvania and IRP, expressed
support for the proposal that all agencies responsible for issuing
registrations for HVUT class vehicles be required to provide proof-of-
payment responsibilities, including any private agencies which some
States utilize to perform registration processes. However, three
commenting organizations, New York, Minnesota, and IRP, expressed some
concerns.
Specifically, the three commenting organizations stated their
objection to the proposed change to require, rather than allow,
electronic storage of IRS Schedule 1 (Form 2290)--proof-of-payment. One
commenting organization stated that additional Federal funding would be
needed to implement the use of electronic images for proof-of-payment.
This same commenter expressed concern that the proposed rules do not
specify how States must certify proof-of-payment when the IRS Schedule
1 (Form 2290) has been filed electronically. The commenter expressed
that FHWA should address the issue in its rules and not wait for the
IRS to develop its long-promised electronic verification process. The
commenter observed that if the electronic verification system (mandated
by Congress in 2004) were available, there arguably would be no need
for the States to retain receipted Forms 2290 at all.
When proof-of-payment has been filed electronically with the IRS,
the vehicle owner must retain a copy of the proof-of-payment for State
vehicle registration purposes. Since July of 2009, the IRS has employed
an electronic filing and payment process, which returns a receipted
proof-of-payment to the taxpayer. This procedure is required for firms
owning more than 25 trucks, but optional for smaller trucking
operations. In either case, a paper copy of the proof-of-payment is
provided to the taxpayer which may be presented at the time of vehicle
registration. The State must preserve a copy of this proof-of-payment
by paper copy or scanning procedures.
In the future, the State may develop an electronic process for
vehicle registration, including registration of vehicles subject to
HVUT, and presumably they would be inspecting an electronic proof-of-
payment from the IRS. This situation offers a prime example of a case
where a State might want to exercise the option to capture the proof-
of-payment records in a software application format as authorized in
this final rule, and FHWA would be periodically inspecting an
electronic file of proof-of-payment images.
The changes to section 669.21 adopted in this final rule do not
specify the method by which the State must maintain the proof. The FHWA
is not requiring States to utilize a scanning procedure. The FHWA's
responsibility is to administer an established procedure to ensure that
States check for IRS Schedule 1 (Form 2290) before registering certain
vehicles. To do this, FHWA needs the States to retain some record that
they have inspected IRS Schedule 1 (Form 2290). In FHWA's view, the
current method to ensure that proof-of-payment is valid is
insufficient, because it does not include provisions for local or
private recordkeeping, and provides for unverifiable options such as
making an entry in an automated file or on registration documents
retained by the State. To properly administer FHWA's responsibilities,
FHWA staff must review either a paper copy or a scanned image of the
proof-of-payment. The FHWA staff must be able to view these items to
check for signs of fraudulent proof-of-payment such as multiple copies
of copies of originals, obviously invalid IRS receipt stamps, Employee
Identification Number (EIN) ``applied for'' when they can be easily
obtained from the IRS, and other suspicious markings or missing
information.
Three commenting organizations, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and IRP
questioned the factual basis for FHWA's unfunded mandates analysis
regarding the document retention requirement of IRS Schedule 1 (Form
2290). One commenting organization, Pennsylvania, also questioned how
this action would not have significant economic impact. All commenting
organizations expressed these concerns based on a misunderstanding that
the proposed rule requires the scanning of IRS Form 2290 into a
computerized record. Additionally, a commenter indicated that no
timeline for implementation by States is provided in the rule, and that
a reasonable timeline should be established to allow for compliance.
Since FHWA is not requiring States to utilize a scanning procedure,
these concerns are not being addressed in this final rule.
Another commenting organization, Minnesota, also stated that the
proposed ``one-year'' retention schedule of IRS Schedule 1 (Form 2290)
is misleading. Under the proposed rule, Minnesota suggested that it
would not certify its compliance as to a vehicle registered in October
2010 until January 1, 2012, and it would not receive the certification
of apportionment until October 1, 2012. In effect, then, Minnesota
would have to retain receipted Forms 2290 for up to 2 years. That is
not the case. It appears that the commenter has mistakenly combined the
annual certification process and the requirements concerning periodic
inspection of records by FHWA, which are two separate processes. It is
under the inspection requirements that the State is required to collect
and maintain proof-of-payment records for 1 year.
One commenting organization, IRP, expressed concern that evaluation
of States' compliance has been inconsistent. The commenter requested
that FHWA ensure that evaluations of States are consistent, and all are
evaluated on the same standards going forward.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, it
should be noted that FHWA has recently provided an extensive on-line
course detailing how HVUT reviews should be conducted by FHWA staff in
the field offices. This course can be found on our Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hvut/module1/index.htm.
Section 669.15 Procedure for the Reduction of Funds
Two commenting organizations, Pennsylvania and IRP, stated their
support for the proposed revisions to 23 CFR 669.15.
One commenting organization, Minnesota, expressed concern regarding
the proposed deletion of certain procedures from section 669.15.
Specifically, Minnesota noted three changes of concern: (1) Under the
current rule, FHWA must notify a State's governor by certified mail,
while the proposed rule is silent as to how and to whom such notice
must be given; (2) Under the current rule, States may respond to a
proposed determination of nonconformity by submitting evidence either
in writing or, at their request, at a conference with FHWA, while in
the latter instance, a transcript of the conference must be prepared.
The commenter believes that States should continue to have the option
of requesting a hearing; (3) Under the current rule, a State may
present mitigating evidence to shed light on why a State is unable to
comply fully or that it will soon be in full compliance, while the
proposed rule limits the evidence that FHWA will consider to
``documentation showing why [the State] is in conformity.''
The FHWA revised procedures at 23 CFR 669.15, being adopted in
today's final rule, parallel other procedures
[[Page 43408]]
established by the FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration for programs that involve funding sanctions.\3\ The
adoption of similar procedures makes these programs: (1) Easier to
administer, (2) more familiar to the States, and (3) provides States
with sufficient notification of a preliminary non-compliance
determination, the right to request a review of FHWA's preliminary non-
compliance determination, and an opportunity to demonstrate State
compliance. Under the new procedures, States do not lose the right to
protest or to show compliance. The preliminary notice of nonconformity
would be issued with the advance notice of apportionments required
under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), together with notice of the funds expected to
be withheld from apportionment. A State would have 30 days to submit
documentation to FHWA showing why it is in conformity. Any State
submission would be reviewed by the FHWA, including the FHWA
Administrator. As part of this process, a State would maintain the
ability to request an informal conference with the FHWA Administrator,
have a transcript of the conference made, or present any mitigating
evidence. The FHWA would then issue a final determination to the State
and if found in nonconformity, the State would receive notice of the
funds being withheld from apportionment as part of the certification of
apportionments, which normally occurs on October 1 of each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Drug Offender Driver's License Suspension Program, 23 CFR
192.10; Minimum Drinking Age Program, 23 CFR 1208.6; Zero Tolerance
Laws, 23 CFR 1210.10; 0.08 BAC Per Se Laws Program, 23 CFR 1225.12;
Open Container Program, 23 CFR 1270.8; Repeat Intoxicated Driver
Laws, 23 CFR 1275.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 669.17 Compliance Finding
One commenting organization, Minnesota, noted that in the NPRM,
FHWA proposed to amend 23 CFR 669.17, the rule pertaining to compliance
findings, but no such amendment appeared in the proposed regulatory
text. The FHWA proposed removing 23 CFR 669.17 because it referred to
the issuance of a compliance finding by the FHWA Administrator and due
to the revised procedures this section was no longer necessary. This
section is removed by this final rule.
Two commenting organizations, Pennsylvania and IRP, indicated their
support of the proposed changes to 23 CFR 669.17, as the changes would
bring a more consistent and formalized process to the apportionment and
notification of non-compliance.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action would not be a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would
not be significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. The textual corrections,
updates to refer to numerical section changes in law, and change in
timing of the certification compliance components of this rule create
no changes to the economic cost of the regulation. A few commenting
organizations apparently believed that the proposed changes require
electronic scanning and retention of IRS Form 2290 for 1 year. As
addressed above, FHWA is not requiring such a system, so there is no
cost associated with developing new procedures, unless a State must
implement procedures to maintain proof payment for counties or other
registering agencies. Additionally, the change in administrative
procedures to remove the FHWA Administrator from the fund reduction
action provides governmental efficiency.
These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material
way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not
interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would
not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation
is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 60l-612) FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed
action on small entities and has determined that the proposed action
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995,
109 Stat. 48). This rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $141.3 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C. 1532). One
change in the regulation that impacts cost is the record keeping
provision. Since the States and other vehicles registration entities
already keep vehicle registration files, no significant additional cost
should be incurred by the States. A few commenting organizations
mistakenly believed that the proposed changes required electronic
scanning and retention of IRS Form 2290 for 1 year. As addressed above,
FHWA is not requiring such a system.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has
determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment. The
FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State
law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Research, Planning, and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has
determined that this rule does contain collection of information
requirements for the purposes of the PRA. The FHWA believes that the
information collected under this action is contained in the existing
information collection under OMB Control Number 2125-0541 granted by
OMB on February 1, 2008.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and has determined
that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory
[[Page 43409]]
Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and
October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document
can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 669
Grants programs-transportation, Highways and roads, Taxes, Motor
vehicles.
Issued on: July 14, 2010.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends part 669 of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 669--ENFORCEMENT OF HEAVY VEHICLE USE TAX
0
1. The authority citation for part 669 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 141(c) and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
0
2. Revise Sec. 669.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 669.7 Certification requirement.
The Governor of each State, or his or her designee, shall certify
to the FHWA before January 1 of each year that it is obtaining proof-
of-payment of the heavy vehicle use tax as a condition of registration
in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 141(c). The certification shall cover the
12-month period ending September 30, except for the certification due
on January 1, 2011, which shall cover the 4-month period from June 1,
2010 to September 30, 2010.
Sec. 669.9 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 669.9, amend paragraphs (b), and (c) by removing the words
``23 U.S.C. 141(d)'' and adding in its place the words ``23 U.S.C.
141(c)'' in each place it appears.
Sec. 669.11 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 669.11 by removing the word ``July'' and adding in its
place the word ``January''.
0
5. Revise Sec. 669.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 669.13 Effect of failure to certify or to adequately obtain
proof-of-payment.
If a State fails to certify as required by this regulation or if
the Secretary of Transportation determines that a State is not
adequately obtaining proof-of-payment of the heavy vehicle use tax as a
condition of registration notwithstanding the State's certification,
Federal-aid highway funds apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C.
104(b)(4) for the next fiscal year shall be reduced in an amount up to
25 percent as determined by the Secretary.
0
6. Revise Sec. 669.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 669.15 Procedure for the reduction of funds.
(a) Each fiscal year, each State determined to be in nonconformity
with the requirements of this part will be advised of the funds
expected to be withheld from apportionment in accordance with Sec.
669.13 and 23 U.S.C. 141(c), as part of the advance notice of
apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), normally not later than
90 days prior to final apportionment.
(b) A State that received a notice in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section may within 30 days of its receipt of the advance notice
of apportionments, submit documentation showing why it is in conformity
with this Part. Documentation shall be submitted to the Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(c) Each fiscal year, each State determined to be in nonconformity
with the requirements of this part and 23 U.S.C. 141(c), based on
FHWA's final determination, will receive notice of the funds being
withheld from apportionment pursuant to section 669.3 and 23 U.S.C.
141(c), as part of the certification of apportionments required under
23 U.S.C. 104(e), which normally occurs on October 1 of each fiscal
year.
0
7. Amend Sec. 669.19 as follows:
0
a. Amend paragraphs (a) and (b) by removing the words ``23 U.S.C.
104(b)(5)'' and adding in its place the words ``23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4)''
in each place it appears; and
0
b. Amend paragraph (c) by removing the word ``Secretary's''.
0
8. Revise Sec. 669.21 to read as follows:
Sec. 669.21 Procedure for evaluating State compliance.
The FHWA shall periodically review the State's procedures for
complying with 23 U.S.C. 141(c), including an inspection of supporting
documentation and records. In those States where a branch office of the
State, a local jurisdiction, or a private entity is providing services
to register motor vehicles including vehicles subject to HVUT, the
State shall be responsible for ensuring that these entities comply with
the requirements of this part concerning the collection and retention
of evidence of payment of the HVUT as a condition of registration for
vehicles subject to such tax and develop adequate procedures to
maintain such compliance. The State or other responsible entity shall
retain a copy of the receipted IRS Schedule 1 (Form 2290), or an
acceptable substitute prescribed by 26 CFR Part 41 sec. 41.6001-2 for a
period of 1 year for purposes of evaluating State compliance with 23
U.S.C. 141(c) by the FHWA. The State may develop a software system to
maintain copies or images of this proof-of-payment.
[FR Doc. 2010-18180 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P