(Un)Fortunately, We Never Stop Learning!

Unregistered Carriers on 12/29/2009 - 1306
Unregistered Carriers on 12/30/2009 - 1302

Illinois - 93.96%
Maine - 93.35%

If you read yesterday's post, you know that I talked a lot about our work with carriers who obtained USDOT numbers during 2009. Well, it turns out that when Kathy and I were comparing notes on these carriers yesterday afternoon, we discovered a glitch in our contact procedures that resulted in 80 of our 489 unregistered "new guys" never having been contacted about UCR. So, of course, we remedied that immediately. But it points to the fact that no matter how diligent we are, we must continue to look for improvements and "cracks".

On another note, I recently identified timelines for "getting to zero" assuming certain rates of "clearance" of our unregistered carriers. Following up on that theme, we are only averaging a "clear rate" of about 8 carriers per day, which technically has us "getting to zero" sometime in August. Not cool. Hopefully, that daily "clear rate" will improve as we "dry up the lake".

Finally, we are approaching the "rare air" of 94% registration. With any luck, we'll hit it tomorrow, but anything can happen. We started December at 93.02% and trailed Maine by .27%, so I'm really happy with the month we've had. I'll recap December tomorrow.

The Unregistered List - Another Piece of the Puzzle.

Unregistered Carriers on 12/28/2009 - 1326
Unregistered Carriers on 12/29/2009 - 1306

Illinois - 93.94%
Maine - 93.38%

As you can see, we took 20 carriers off the list yesterday ... not a bad start on the next phase of the "getting to zero" effort.

Here's an interesting fact: of the 1306 remaining unregistered carriers, 489 of them have a USDOT number issued in 2009. That seems like a lot of carriers - and I might feel bad about that fact - except that we have registered nearly 88% (87.64%, to be exact) of our new USDOT carriers! No other state is even close to us in that department - Maine is next at 78.77%, and then the percentages fall into the low 60's.

The good news is this: we can be fairly certain that those carriers are really active and that their demographics are reasonably accurate, etc. In other words, they are probably not phantom MCMIS records and we can probably reach them and register them ... eventually.

Getting To Zero - I Haven't Forgotten!

Unregistered Carriers on 12/24/2009 - 1333
Unregistered Carriers on 12/28/2009 - 1326

Illinois - 93.84%
Maine - 93.34%

It's tempting to look at all we've accomplished in 2009 and declare victory. But that's not what this blog - or the UCR5000 project - is all about. Let's recap.

In March of 2009, I said in a UCR Board Meeting that I was going to try to "get to zero" unregistered carriers in Illinois - in other words, I was going to try to register every carrier in our Illinois "UCR Universe".

At the time, we had 5,123 carriers left on our unregistered list - having already registered well over 10,000 IL carriers.

As you can see, we now have 1,326 unregistered carriers. What will it take to get to zero from here? Here are a few thoughts:

1) Until we have 2010 fees, we will actively continue to pursue 2009 unregistered carriers. When we get fees for 2010, we will probably get "distracted" as we only have a small staff and I'm sure they will be quite busy!

2) After 12/31/09, we will no longer be adding "new 2009 USDOT numbers" - which means our 2009 UCR Universe can only grow by "sideways additions". End result: quicker (hopefully) reduction of the list.

3) The Daily Reduction Table (DRT). The DRT shows how many work days (and months) we would need to get ourselves to zero based on reducing the list by a certain net number of carriers per work day.

Reduce List By Work Days / Months
-------------- ------------------

10 133 / 6
20 67 / 3
30 44 / 2

I have to think about what this means for our effort in the new year, but it's intriguing to think that reducing that list by 30 carriers per work day gets us to zero by the end of February. Impossible? No. Improbable? Yes. But I keep thinking about that moment in "Dumb and Dumber" when Loren Holly tells Jim Carrey that his odds of winning her affection are not one-in-a-hundred but "one-in-a-million" and he says, "So you're saying there's a chance!!" I like the enthusiasm!

Hey, what do we have to lose???

UCR Best Practice Review

Unregistered Carriers on 12/23/2009 - 1342
Unregistered Carriers on 12/24/2009 - 1333

Illinois - 93.81%
Maine - 93.34%

So far we've talked about four UCR best practices:

1) Know who's on your UCR Unregistered List
2) Routinely Solicit Your Unregistered Carriers
3) Know Your Statistics
4) Work Smarter, Not Harder

Best Practice #5 is really important to me, but you may find it ridiculous: Set A Challenge For Yourself and Your Staff

I've been as forthright as possible about the challenges I've set here in Illinois:

Register more of our state's carriers than anybody else.
Register a higher percentage of our carriers than anybody else.
Get to Zero.

I have to be honest - I think these kinds of challenges cause us to operate at a higher level. The thinking goes something like this, "I know we probably won't be able to do this ... but if we were going to try, what would that look like?"

Asking that one question, "... what would that look like?", has helped us to develop tools and processes that would not have happened otherwise. As corny as it sounds, it's the "stuff" from which innovation emanates.

So ... setting a challenge really just "puts a specific number target" on improving the operation.

And, I can tell you from first-hand experience that overcoming a challenge that didn't really look possible at the outset raises the expectations of everybody involved about what's possible. It has rewards that go way beyond UCR.

I Wish You A Merry Christmas And A Very Happy And Prosperous New Year!

Best Practice #4 - Working Smarter, Not Harder

Unregistered Carriers on 12/22/2009 - 1357
Unregistered Carriers on 12/23/2009 - 1342

Illinois - 93.76%
Maine - 93.22%

We have a saying around here, "We need to work smarter, not harder."

Essentially, it means, "let's figure out how to improve our performance of a task in a way that results in expending LESS staff effort than we are expending now."

Tall, order, right? If you think it smacks of "doing more with less", you are correct. Is that possible? Yes!

A great example is our experience with carrier email addresses.

When we first learned of their availability, Kathy would dutifully grab dozens of email addresses every day, plug them into an email and then send out the email. This led to us asking Iteris to build an emailer, which not only removed the need for Kathy to do the labor-intensive email activity she had been doing, but basically put the whole thing on auto-pilot, complete with the capability to conduct multiple emails campaigns, send emails to everybody who is unregistered every 15 days, etc. In other words, we are now doing "abundantly more" in this area --- with less effort.

Interestingly, working smarter for a lot of states would be as simple as subscribing to UCR-Link.

When all is said and done, however, a lot more is said than done. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.)

When all is said and done, however, setting the bar at working smarter - doing more with less effort" - results in a different train of thought than just trying to do a task or an activity more efficiently.

Best Practice Number Four - Work Smarter, Not Harder (The Parable)

Unregistered Carriers on 12/21/2009 - 1382
Unregistered Carriers on 12/22/2009 - 1357

Illinois - 93.69%
Maine - 93.22%

Once upon a time, in an obscure agency somewhere in the Midwest, toiled a lady named Kayleen. Kayleen worked for a kind and benevolent manager named Dane. Dane was known to be a patient man, for he put up with frequent bouts of whining and sniveling from Kayleen (primarily because other help was hard to find). One day, Kayleen, in her aforementioned sniveling tone, complained to the benevolent Dane that her work was slowly overwhelming her. To her total surprise, Dane did not retort, "Perhaps if you stopped talking on your cell phone and worked a little harder, your workload might become more manageable!" (although he would undoubtedly have been justified in doing so). Instead, Dane demonstrated his vast wisdom by simply saying, "We must learn to work smarter." "Work smarter?" asked Kayleen. "I only know how to work harder." "Yes", replied Dane. "That is why I am the boss!"

What secret knowledge did the wise Dane possess that completely eluded the fair - but somewhat "challenged" - Lady Kayleen?

Tune in tomorrow for an analysis of this great and important parable ....

The Third Best UCR Best Practice

Unregistered Carriers on 12/18/2009 - 1378
Unregistered Carriers on 12/21/2009 - 1382

Illinois - 93.58%
Maine - 93.18%

As threatened, I'd like to talk a little about another UCR Best Practice - statistics.

How important are statistics? I think they're really important for several reasons. Statistics tell you:

1) Where you are
2) Where you've been
3) Where you're going

An old business adage suggests that "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it." For the most part, I'm inclined to agree - at least as far as UCR goes. Unfortunately, you CAN supervise it - which, I believe, is causing some states - and the rest of us - a lot of problems.

What's the difference between management and supervision? Here's my ten-second, oversimplified version: a supervisor makes sure that you are doing today exactly what you did yesterday - maybe a little more efficiently. A manager makes sure you're doing important stuff.

If you are driving a car towards a cliff, a supervisor (no clue about the cliff) makes sure your steering technique is good and that you are maximizing your gas mileage ... while a manager tells you to make the necessary changes to get the car rolling in a more productive direction....away from the cliff. Big difference. Many times, supervisors are not even aware that things are going awry ("that's not my job"), let alone what to do to fix it.

Why do I bring this up? Because managers manage - often, to numbers - while supervisors supervise.

Managers know that the numbers paint a picture. Managers know that numbers create a perception. Managers know that if you point to a certain number and say, "This is where we are ... and this is where we want to be", a good staff (which I'm fortunate to have) can intuit a certain amount of what needs to be done and maybe even provide ideas on how to get there.

Let's face it ... even if you don't use numbers, other people are looking at your numbers and forming perceptions about what kind of job you're doing.

Try using the numbers ... you won't go back.

The Second Best "Best Practice" - Routine Solicitation

Unregistered Carriers on 12/17/2009 - 1379
Unregistered Carriers on 12/18/2009 - 1378

Illinois - 93.59%
Maine - 93.24%

I think one of the best things we've done is to "routinize" solicitation of UCR unregistered carriers.

Whether it's daily email solicitation or sending stuff to the "sideways adds" or phoning carriers on the unregistered list, we have activity going on daily. To me, this approach is far more effective than sending a mass mailing once or twice a year.

Do we end up sending as many pieces of mail out? Sure ... maybe more. Does it pay off? You already know that I think so.

Daily activity allows our folks to get into a UCR "rhythm". It's also led us to conceive some really great UCR solicitation tools that have been incorporated into UCR-Link. I predict more next year.

Next time, if I remember, I'm going to write about Best Practice #3 - Statistics.

What Should The Minimum UCR State Effort Be?

Unregistered Carriers on 12/16/2009 - 1382
Unregistered Carriers on 12/17/2009 - 1379

Illinois - 93.58%
Maine - 93.27%

Every once in a while, I like to torture myself by thinking about UCR State Participation Agreements. Specifically, who's keeping their promise and who's not?

One important "rear view mirror" point of clarification is that we didn't REALLY know what we were getting into when we signed up - kind of like getting married ... or working for me. And we naively thought that we were all in this together, if you follow my drift. And who was hammering the table insisting on "performance"? Nobody!

There were no performance measures except for - and I'm paraphrasing here - we had to use an amount of money equal to the revenue we collected for motor carrier safety purposes.

Our actual results have been all over the board. And how do we distinguish a state that has, in fact, dutifully fulfilled its obligation from one that hasn't? Beats me. Maybe it's the old, "I can't spell it out for you, but I'll recognize it when I see it." Heck, even that description is fraught with peril.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that if you don't commit to anything, it's hard to let people down. It's not that those people won't feel let down, it's just that you never really agreed to all that baggage they hauled in later on.

Think about poor Tiger. A lot of people think he owes the public an apology. For what?? He didn't promise US he would never cheat on his wife. And she never promised him that she wouldn't wrap a golf club around his head if she found out. No specific promise - no foul!

And, just for good measure, let us never forget what basketball great Charles Barkley said when somebody "reminded" him that his behavior was not in keeping with the behavior of a role model, "I'm not a role model! Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids!" I love that one!

So it appears to be with State Participation Agreements - States actually COMMITTED to doing very little ... and they've been faithful to their commitment. If we're disappointed, it might be more our own problem than theirs.

Mea culpa, everyone! (Bill, that's Latin for "Merry Christmas" ...)

What's The BEST UCR Best Practice?

Unregistered Carriers on 12/15/2009 - 1382
Unregistered Carriers on 12/16/2009 - 1382

Illinois - 93.56%
Maine - 93.27%

I've been thinking about the question, "If I could only implement one best practice, what would it be?" (This assumes, of course, that one is motivated to implement any best practices at all.)

For me, the answer is simple: find out who is on your Unregistered List.

Knowing who's unregistered can stimulate you to think about ways that you can reach those particular people and get them registered. NOT knowing who's unregistered can't stimulate you to do a darned thing. In fact, I think it promotes a false complacency that you are "doing what you can".

I know that some people will say, "we can't afford to buy UCR-Link" or "we don't have access to that data" or something else to that effect.

My approach is this: if a state wants their information, I'll find a way to get it to them. To date, I've had very few requests, which signals to me that States 1) don't recognize the value, or they 2) don't care to do more, or they 3) don't get it.

All of these trouble me in one way or another .... but that's a discussion for another day.

A Little UCR Numbers Weirdness

Unregistered Carriers on 12/14/2009 - 1380
Unregistered Carriers on 12/15/2009 - 1382

Illinois - 93.56%
Maine - 93.27%

Well, half-way through December, my prediction about Maine not moving much off of 93.29% is looking pretty good. Just to recap, I said that if their entire UCR effort was having a new guy get a DOT number and then registering that guy, it wasn't going to affect their percentage much. Sooner or later, they have to remove some additional guys from their unregistered list - and I don't think they avail themselves of their unregistered list.

Meanwhile, you may have noticed that they fell from 93.33% to 93.27%. This happened because they added two guys to their unregistered list but didn't register any.

We, on the other hand, registered 34 guys, re-sent a couple records, and deactived a couple carriers yesterday, but our percentage didn't budge because we added 41 carriers to our unregistered list. 41 carriers! And most of them were new DOT numbers! Chalk them up to enforcement.

Such is the nature of UCR registration percentage math ... and then, of course, there is the Federal update process, which can throw off the best of mathematical calculations and expectations.

Perhaps I Spoke Too Soon About Indiana!

Unregistered Carriers on 12/11/2009 - 1393
Unregistered Carriers on 12/14/2009 - 1380

Illinois - 93.56%
Maine - 93.34%

No sooner did I say that sending Indiana their unregistered list didn't make a difference than their registration percentage shot up in one day from 89.83% to 90.01%! This may have been because of a delay in Federal data processing or it may be due to an influx of registrations ... either way, congrats to Indiana for hitting the 90% mark!

Amazing What A Difference A Couple Carriers Can Make!

Unregistered Carriers on 12/09/2009 - 1397
Unregistered Carriers on 12/10/2009 - 1391

Illinois - 93.50%
Maine - 93.34%

You may have noticed that Maine continues to fall further behind us in registration percentage. In fact, we have exceeded their performance by .43% in the month of December. (I'm not trying to pick on Maine - it's just that they are in 2nd place.)

Despite what looks like a strong performance by us during December, however, our lead is tenuous at best! Why? Because in order to catch up with us, Maine would only have to remove a net of about 6 carriers from their unregistered list! Six carriers! The irony, of course, is that they would have to know who's on their unregistered list before they can remove them - and I don't think they have availed themselves of that list.

Even if they had their list, I'm not sure it would make any difference. A couple weeks ago, I sent Indiana their list and Indiana is still, for all practical purposes, at the same percentage they were then.

Maybe, after 16 months of 2009 registration, everybody's getting a little tired. Better eat your Wheaties, folks! We may be doing 2009 registration for a while yet!!!

20,001 - A Race Oddity!

Unregistered Carriers on 12/08/2009 - 1404
Unregistered Carriers on 12/09/2009 - 1397

Illinois - 93.47%
Maine - 93.39%

This morning, we finally registered our 20,000th Illinois carrier for RY 2009. If somebody would have told me last year that we even HAVE 20,000 active carriers in Illinois, I would have told them that I doubt it.

What's even more amazing to me is that we still have 1,397 unregistered carriers! While I don't believe that all of those carriers are active, I think that most of them (90%?) probably are, so we still have lots of work to do.

Meanwhile, Maine surged by .1% as they registered 4 carriers, and removed 3 carriers from their unregistered list.

Yesterday, I ran a report that showed that we (Illinois) have about 17,500 carriers in our current MCMIS "UCR Universe" of carriers. This means 17,500 MCMIS records that meet all the criteria for being included in the list of likely candidates for 2010 registration. That number seems low to me, but, at this point, I'll assume "it is what it is".

And as for 2010 fees, I'm not assuming anything!

I Know Percentages Can Be Deceiving, But ...

Unregistered Carriers on 12/07/2009 - 1409
Unregistered Carriers on 12/08/2009 - 1404

Illinois - 93.43%
Maine - 93.29%

I was looking over some State registration percentages this morning and I noticed something kind of odd. "We" have now registered 66.46% of the carriers from New Jersey, a non-participating UCR state. (Bill Leonard will, of course, take most of the credit for New Jersey - whether or not it's true!)

Interestingly, that percentage puts them ahead of at least four participating UCR states - Georgia (65.15%), Michigan (65.45%), North Carolina (62.73%) and South Carolina (55.98%).

It also puts them within "spitting distance" of California (67.12%), Iowa (67.58%), Mississippi (69.49%), Montana (68%) and New Hampshire (69.99%).

Three of those states - Georgia, North Carolina and California - have over 5,000 unregistered carriers each, with California having almost 10,000.

As I said, this is not a judgment, just an observation.

One could make the argument, however, that it might be more effective to "de-participate" some states and take our chances. Ju-s-s-st kidding!

How Maine Can (Easily) Regain The Lead From Illinois

Unregistered Carriers on 12/04/2009 - 1412
Unregistered Carriers on 12/07/2009 - 1409

Illinois - 93.41%
Maine - 93.29%

As incredible as it may sound, Maine can easily regain the lead from us.

And, as unbelievable as it may seem, I'm going to tell them how to do it.

Ready? Here goes:

Take four more carriers off your unregistered list.

It's that simple. Or that difficult, depending on how you view a little extra effort.

If I was in Maine (which I'm not) and if I was reading this blog (which I probably would be), I would, of course, call carriers on my unregistered list all afternoon until I found four of them that I could either register or deactivate - just on principle.

Honey, does this post make my nature look competitive?

UCR "Wars - Saturday Edition - 12/05/09

Unregistered Carriers on 12/04/2009 - 1412
Unregistered Carriers on 12/05/2009 - 1410

Illinois - 93.40%
Maine - 93.29%

I've been speculating on whether Maine can move significantly off their current percentage without doing some kind of proactive registration / deactivation work. Here's my thinking.

Yesterday, they moved from 93.26% to 93.29% by registering a carrier. This carrier was, in effect, a carrier they added early in the week that took their percentage down from .29 to .26, so now they registered the guy and it's a wash and they have returned to .29. Their overall percentage for December has registered no significant change. So, just to review, if all they do is add a new DOT number and then register that guy every time, their percentage will first go down and then return (more or less) to where it was.

What does this mean for us?

Keep soliciting, keep registering, keep deactivating and we will emerge victorious!

"What does have to do with getting to zero?", you might wonder, perhaps even aloud.

Same formula. If we can't beat Maine, we can't get to zero.

UCR is Creating A Stir In Illinois

Unregistered Carriers on 12/02/2009 - 1422
Unregistered Carriers on 12/04/2009 - 1412

Illinois - 93.39%
Maine - 93.26%

This morning, I went to an interesting meeting with a dozen or so agency representatives from IRP, Farm Plates, CDL, FMCSA, Illinois DOT and State Police (MCSAP). This meeting was in preparation for a meeting we're going to have next week with numerous representatives of the Illinois agricultural industry.

Several times in the meeting, people said that UCR was responsible for all the new FMCSA activity among the thousands of farmers in Illinois.

While I was flattered on behalf of the UCR program, I reminded them that we don't register farmers for UCR until we first establish the farmer's need to have a USDOT number - a requirement that's been on the books since the 1980's. I also reminded them that we are pursuing USDOT numbers for farmers at the specific direction and request of FMCSA.

I did NOT remind them, however, that FMCSA funds MCSAP - so where the heck have they been? In other words, the requirement for USDOT numbers has been on the books for 25 years and didn't change with the advent of UCR. This is really part of a much broader and deeper issue of interstate commerce.

We know the Feds want these "carriers" brought into the fold. Bill Quaid said so emphatically at the last Board meeting

So, either MCSAP hasn't been doing a critical job they've being paid to do for several decades, or UCR should be given credit for bringing a lot more carriers into the federal fold than would ever have been brought in without the UCR program.

Come on, give us a little credit! It's Christmas!

The Reign In Maine is Plainly Down The Drain

Unregistered Carriers on 12/01/2009 - 1439
Unregistered Carriers on 12/02/2009 - 1422

Illinois - 93.34%
Maine - 93.23%

No, that's not a typo.

Yes, we did pass up Maine - rather handily, I might add - this morning.

Of course, we always have to acknowledge the disclaimer about the Fed update process, but .... it would appear that we have achieved (at least temporarily) one of our major goals - the highest State registration percentage.

As I've indicated before, this goal is important to me because I have maintained from the start that you don't have to be an IRP agency to do well in the UCR program. In fact, I'm convinced that many states suffer from "IRP myopia" - if we just register IRP carriers, we will have done our job.

One milestone goal left - registering 20,000 Illinois carriers. According to the Iteris numbers, we are 82 registrations shy of that goal. And, by the way, we now lead California by over 200 registrations.

Finally, for those you who THINK you have good employees .... Kathy told me this morning that she's not going to rest until we've reduced the Unregistered list to 0. She even called me a "slacker" for pausing to enjoy today's moment. Now that's dedication!

As General George Patton once said, "God, I actually pity those poor SOB's we're going up against."

Hey, Maine! Move over!

Unregistered Carriers on 11/30/2009 - 1481
Unregistered Carriers on 12/01/2009 - 1439

Maine - 93.26%
Illinois - 93.25%

We had a BIG day yesterday - 60 registrations! Meanwhile, Maine took a little hit, so we are literally breathing down Maine's figurative neck!

The strategy I outlined a couple weeks ago appears to be working beautifully, although, quite frankly, 60 registrations at this point has a lot more to do with "working the UCR Universe" - and the long weekend - than de-activating carriers. And, the amazing thing is that we still have 200+ carriers on the Unregistered List with MCS-150 Update dates older than 2 years, so we have "room to run" on the strategy. Meanwhile, we are still averaging about 20 added carriers a day, so that side of the equation continues to bear fruit.

Tuesdays are usually soft, so who knows? Let's see what the day brings.

UCR - November at a Glance

Unregistered Carriers on 11/25/2009 - 1512
Unregistered Carriers on 11/30/2009 - 1481

Maine - 93.29%
Illinois - 93.02%

We start the morning .27% behind Maine. With just a little bit of luck, we might be able to catch them by the end of this week.

Today marks the last day of the month. November has been a pretty fair month for us. We have registered 448 carriers and taken in a little over $39K, for an average registration amount of $87.

For those of you who have been reading this blog for a while, you know that $80+ is a fairly steady number for us over the past year of post-rush registrations. That's certainly a long way from $39.

Here's an aside from the CVSA news bulletin today. According to eTrucker magazine, 4 states have vehicle out-of-service ratios above 33%. I'm not an expert on MCSAP, but doesn't that mean - or at least imply - that, if inspected, one vehicle out of every three trucks that are on the highway in those states would be put out of service?

By the way, the next six states are over 28% - which doesn't seem much better. Perhaps someone can explain the error in my thinking to me ...

Back on the UCR front (can I turn a phrase or what?), today is shaping up to be a pretty good day. Look out Maine!!!

UCR "Wars - The Saturday Edition - 11/28/09

Unregistered Carriers on 11/28/2009 - 1481

By now, I hope everyone has successfully expressed their thanks - by stuffing their face full of turkey, potatoes, dressing, pie, etc. and falling asleep in front of the TV.

Here's where we were a week ago:

Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.91%

Here's where we are today:

Maine - 93.29%
Illinois - 93.05%

Using these numbers, we need to take about 60 more guys off our Unregistered List to catch Maine - if they stand still, that is.

Meanwhile, we are now ahead of California by about 150 registrations, as opposed to 110 registrations last Saturday.

You know, I'm starting to think that the Feds's weekend data updates are a little like the Federal legislation process: you know where you are at the start of the process, but you have no idea how they arrived at their end product.

Have a great rest of the weekend, everyone!

The United Motorcoach Association "Piles On"

Unregistered Carriers on 11/24/2009 - 1532
Unregistered Carriers on 11/25/2009 - 1512

Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.91%

The United Motorcoach Association was featured in the FMCSA News Summary the other day echoing many of the same UCR "sentiments" that the rest of "big industry" has been yelling about since summer.

They make the following points:

The 122% proposed increase in fees is not "reasonable", especially in a year when the economy and businesses are suffering.

Neither the FMCSA nor individual states are doing enough to expand collections under the UCRA or to find scofflaws that are not paying.

A plan to increase compliance seems to escape participating states.

FMCSA only suggests that increased compliance might mitigate the need for such a tremendous increase in fees.

FMCSA is rewarding states for poor performance, punishing compliant carriers and encouraging noncompliant carriers to remain so.

Now is the time to develop "a more fair and effective method" to supplement the revenue needed by states to carry out their safety enforcement efforts.

UMA goes on to recommend the following:

1. Abandon any plans to increase UCRA fees in 2010.

2. Require states to increase collection enforcement and submit plans demonstrating increased enforcement.

3. Immediately solicit alternative proposals for methods that may prove more effective in supplementing states and replace UCRA altogether.

4. Based on increased compliance and public proposals, more ‘reasonable' fees should be established for Jan. 1, 2011, implementation and published no later than July 1, 2010 should UCRA prove viable."

You know, I would love to sit down and talk to the folks who created this document and these suggestions.

With all due respect, I wonder whether they even understand what they're talking about beyond "Wow, that's a big increase!", primarily because of their recommendation #1. They don't seem to be aware that a huge chunk of the increase can be traced directly to the elimination of trailers, which even the "big truck people" concede is (dare I use the term?) "reasonable" because of the changes to the law. In fact, industry was "not so quietly" pushing for the scenario that raised fees 60-70% as a "reasonable compromise in this economy". At least give us lazy, poor-performing, non-compliance-encouraging, unimaginative State and Federal folks credit for that much!

As you know, I could go on (and on and on) about this document and all the other position statements made by industry regarding the fee increase, but it's Thanksgiving week and I'm feeling thankful for a lot of things.

One thing I'm especially thankful for is that I have been at the Bingo Stamp / SSRS / UCR "table" for a lot of years now (side-by side with industry, I might add) ... and I seem to be one of the (few) people who is able to remember how we got where we are. Maybe we'll reminisce a little about that next week.

Meanwhile ... Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!!!

Staying the UCR Course

Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575
Unregistered Carriers on 11/24/2009 - 1532

Maine - 93.25%
Illinois - 92.82%

We had a big registration day yesterday - 50 registrations! Many of these registrations were a direct result of good old persistence coupled with our concerted efforts to clear up the MCMIS records with old MCS-150 update dates.

Currently, we need a NET reduction of right around 100 unregistered carriers to catch Maine. You'll recall that catching them is a moving target depending upon what THEY do. My thought is this: if we improve faster than they improve, we'll still catch them one of these days - even if they continue to improve their percentage.

Having said that, we may encounter a slight setback today in that we are expecting a delayed batch of additions from the Feds. In fact, everybody may be facing the same delayed adds. The Fed update schedule still baffles me a little, but it seems like everything eventually "comes out in the wash".

If you've been following this blog, you know that we have now increased our registration percentage by 1.43% this month. The next highest November percentage increase is, ironically, Maine at .36%.

It's interesting to note that the registration percentage for some states is actually going backward for the month. Going backwards can easily happen in this part of the registration cycle if you register less of your state's carriers than the number of new "UCR Universe" USDOT numbers added in your state.

I've said it before - I think FOCUS is really important. If you focus on getting better at UCR, you probably will. Conversely, if you don't focus on getting better at UCR, chances are good that you won't. You may even get worse - at least from a registration percentage standpoint.

The most important UCR best practice may be making the decision to get better at UCR.

UCR "Wars" - The Saturday Edition - 11/21/09

Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575
Unregistered Carriers on 11/21/2009 - 1557

Maine - 93.18%
Illinois - 92.69%

The plan's working pretty well so far. By my calculations, I need to take about 120 more guys off my Unregistered List to get into that rarified Maine air.

Meanwhile, we are now ahead of California by about 110 registrations.

One caveat: I think the Friday Fed updates were a little screwed up, so we may get clobbered with new carriers on Monday or Tuesday.

No matter what happens next week, it's good to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally to see from whence we've come.

On November 2 - three short weeks ago - we trailed CA by 64 registrations and Maine by 1.44%.

One other thing I'd like to see happen would be for us to register 20,000 Illinois carriers. We're currently at 19,749, so that seems do-able.

Sub-goals like this are good ... but we're nowhere near zero yet! "Getting to zero" was THE original goal of this project.

I'm willing to concede that we have accomplished a lot since then - much of it as a result of pursuing the original goal - but the original goal still stands .... and, as far as I'm concerned, the rest of it is just fun motivational stuff.

Until next week ...

Is It True What They Say About .... Iowa???

Unregistered Carriers on 11/19/2009 - 1597
Unregistered Carriers on 11/20/2009 - 1575

Maine - 93.18%
Illinois - 92.61%

On Wednesday, one of our officers stopped an Iowa motor carrier who was not registered under UCR. He told us that he tried to register for UCR in Iowa, but Iowa told him they don't register carriers for UCR anymore and that he would have to go to the UCR Web site to register. Apparently, he called Indiana and asked Indiana to register him (presumably using Iowa's account) and Sandy & Co. were nice enough to accommodate him. This was the story we got from the carrier, anyway.

Admittedly, all this is hearsay, and if I was bound to any kind of journalistic integrity mandate - which, I'd like to point out with a certain amount of non-journalistic glee, I'm not - I would jump all over this situation and set off in heated and relentless pursuit of the facts. In other words, I would call Bruce in Iowa and see if the story checks out. But, for blogging purposes, I'm not particularly interested in the facts of this situation.

Instead, I would like to pursue the concept of a UCR State - ANY UCR State - telling people that if they want to register for UCR, they MUST go to the UCR Web site. I've thought about taking this approach myself.

On the one hand, I like the idea a lot. It's very efficient! Essentially, a State is "deflecting" all of the work back to the carrier and "wasting" almost no resources on customer service, mailings, etc. (One of my co-workers once said to me, "They HAVE to come to us. Why do you call them 'customers'"? If that's your mindset, then there's probably not much point in reading further. But I'll bet you're also the first one to complain about the long wait at the Driver's License facility!) Anyway, deflect the work - save the cash.

(Side note: Iowa doesn't collect a lot of money from UCR, so this approach makes even more sense from a resource standpoint in Iowa than it does in many other UCR States.)

On the other hand, why are we designated as UCR "base states"? And what are we getting paid to do? And what if a "carrier" has no computer or doesn't have a lot of facility with the computer. And what if, heaven forbid, the carrier doesn't even own a credit card and is not about to use e-Check or any other kind of electronic payment mechanism. What if he's used to doing business in cash? Remember, something like 70-80% of the people registering are operating 1-2 trucks. Mom and Pop. Not UPS. And we all know there's a whole bunch of "I don't like technology" people out there.

So, if you're a customer service guy like me, you look at this approach and say that it's a little long on self-service (State self-service, that is) and a little short on "user-friendly" for the carrier - especially the carrier who needs the help.

If we were a business (I know, I know, we're not), I don't think we'd be in business long taking this approach. Frankly, if the situation were reversed and I was the customer, I would resent being told such a thing. Imagine going to a restaurant, walking up to the counter with your $20 bill - yes, I'm the last of the big-time spenders - and being told that you have to go to a Web site to pay the bill. Better yet, imagine going to a restaurant and being told, "We don't actually serve food here. Call some other restaurant and have them deliver it to you. You can use the phone over there - for a dollar plus convenience fees!"

By the way, for what it's worth, I would have registered the Iowa guy if Sandy hadn't. Serve the carrier first - sort out the details later.

The "Burden" of Collaboration

Unregistered Carriers on 11/18/2009 - 1609
Unregistered Carriers on 11/19/2009 - 1597

Maine - 93.14%
Illinois - 92.50%

I've been thinking overnight about the prospects for collaboration .... and I'm struck by a recurring question:

What does/will it actually mean for "us" to collaborate?

First, who is "us"? If we're talking about NCSTS, we could be talking about the current officers, the Past Presidents, the Executive Committee, the States, the Industry, the Past Hospitality Suite Coordinators or the entire NCSTS membership.

Second, what will collaboration mean? Frequently, I approach the adequacy of a new piece of software in terms of, "Here's what I need it to do. Does it do that?" In this case, it's almost like we're looking at what Sharepoint does and figuring out if that type of collaboration could apply to the "new and improved" collaborative us.

In other words, we have no Grand Collaboration Plan to test the capabilities of Sharepoint against.

And I'm struck by the extent to which we don't collaborate now.

And I think we're going to have to "grow into" collaboration.

UCR - Prospects For Collaboration

Unregistered Carriers on 11/17/2009 - 1619
Unregistered Carriers on 11/18/2009 - 1609

Maine - 93.11%
Illinois - 92.44%

As luck would have it, Maine got swamped by 4 new carriers and registered one of them, so they took a little percentage hit while we managed to move ahead a tad. We now sit at .67% behind them. The plan comes together ...(;

But that's not why I called you here ....

My agency is starting to work with Microsoft Sharepoint, a giant collaboration tool/site. The capabilities are prodigious - and can be aimed at the outside (outside of my agency) world. This leads me to the concept of external collaboration (collaboration + outside world)and begs the question, "If we (UCR Administrators, UCR Board, NCSTS) could collaborate at a common site to do common things, what kinds of common things would we choose to collaborate on?". Pithy question.

Sharepoint can handle document storage, document versioning, offshoot Web sites, blogs, discussion forums (fora? fori? forae?) and, trust me on this, all kinds of other stuff. If we can figure out something to collaborate on, I'm guessing Sharepoint can accomodate us.

Over the next couple of weeks, I'm going to work up a couple of test things and demonstrate them via Live Meeting because we don't have external Sharepoint access yet ... it costs extra $$$. But I think the agency is willing to spend the money if we can demonstrate a legitimate use. So work with me on this, people.

And try to be mindful of what the late, great, granny-glass-wearin', kite-flyin', Constitution-signin', odometer-inventin' Ben ("It's all about the Benjamins") Franklin said:

We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.

Amen, brother!

UCR - "The 300" (The Goal - Not The Movie)

Unregistered Carriers on 11/16/2009 - 1646
Unregistered Carriers on 11/17/2009 - 1619

Maine - 93.20%
Illinois - 92.39%

Last Thursday, I wrote that we need a net reduction of approximately 300 carriers from our unregistered list if we are going to give Maine a run for their money.

I also said that our unregistered list showed approximately 350 carriers who haven't updated their MCS-150 in at least two years and I told you that our strategy was to address that group as the potential source for many of the 300.

Today, that same number (350) stands at 267, a reduction of 83. At the same time, our unregistered list has been reduced by a net of 79. Coincidence? You decide.

We will continue to address this group in our quest for the top spot.

It's interesting to note that some of these people were early "sideways" additions - before we know what a "sideways" addition was - so they missed our early mailings and are, in some cases, just now hearing from us.

Sometimes, this process still amazes me. As Dave Barry says:

The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example.

Why Do We Still Have 1600+ Unregistered Carriers

Unregistered Carriers on 11/14/2009 - 1626
Unregistered Carriers on 11/16/2009 - 1646

Maine - 93.17%
Illinois - 92.26%

When I can pull myself away from "War Games", I tend to reflect on why we (Illinois) still have over 1600 unregistered carriers. While I believe we have done extremely well, I still think that's a huge number. The answer, quite frankly, is that I don't really know the whole answer. As the dad said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "so there you have it!" (He also said that Windex fixes everything, but it hasn't worked on registration percentage yet.)

Here's what I DO know:

About 400 of these are USDOT numbers issued since January 1 that have not yet registered. Many of them are "in process" - in fact, 20 of them came to our attention for the first time this morning.

Some percentage of them - a small percentage, I think - are guys who are in the "boonies" and who pretty much refuse to register and probably won't get caught.

Some percentage of them - again, a small percentage, I think - are guys for whom we have bad addresses, but they appear to be active when we do our due diligence.

Some percentage of them - maybe another 10% - are really inactive carriers that we haven't deactivated yet.

Some percentage of them - probably a small percentage, at this point - are bad MCMIS records.

Believe it or not, we still make a fair number of contacts where the carriers say, "This is the first I've heard of this." Kathy maintains that this group is primarily private carriers with old numbers. Many of them end up registering, but, for the moment, they are still "in process".

Beyond that, I'm still searching for answers.

One thing we have learned is that you can register 90+% of them, but the other few percent can still be quite elusive.

No matter - I'm still trying to "get to zero"! I may not get all the way there without ultimately having a SWAT team trained on the last holdout in a small farm house somewhere in the boonies! News at 11!

I'm JUST KIDDING about that last part - hopefully, we can avoid that unpleasantry!

UCR "Wars" - Saturday Edition

Unregistered Carriers on 11/13/2009 - 1678
Unregistered Carriers on 11/14/2009 - 1626

Maine - 93.10%
Illinois - 92.35%

From the movie "Patton"
--------------------------
Capt. Jenson: They haven't spotted our positions yet.

Gen. Patton: They will get some education in about 10 seconds when they get a dose of our artillery fire.


Just as General Patton waged a battle without letting the other side know until the last few seconds, I am stealthily "sneaking up" on Maine. With any luck, I'll be "in position" in a couple of weeks.

We've gone from a deficit of 1.25% to a deficit of .75% in three days(although I happen to think we will get clobbered with a bunch of new carriers after the weekend updates, which will increase the deficit).

Bill Leonard tried to let the cat out of the bag at the Board meeting last Thursday, but nobody even knew what the heck he was talking about, which can only be attributed to my masterful tactical preparation.

Things are also going well on the California "front". We lead them by about 60 registrations, although that may also change after the weekend updates.

Have a great rest of the weekend! And keep your heads down!

UCR "Renewal" - What's Your Approach?

Unregistered Carriers on 11/12/2009 - 1709
Unregistered Carriers on 11/13/2009 - 1678

Maine - 93.10%
Illinois - 92.11%

I have given considerable thought to 2010 UCR "Renewal".

I use quotation marks because the very word "renewal" already suggests a particular approach to the task - send a UCR form/letter/postcard/email to everybody who registered for UCR in 2009. But that's only one approach - and it may not be the best approach for you and your state.

Let's suppose that you are going to do a "renewal" as I have defined it.

We can say categorically that you will reach MANY of the people who registered in 2009.

You will also, however, reach some people who are no longer in business or who no longer need to do UCR.

You will NOT reach those who registered in 2009 but whose address is changed.

Some of the people, some of the time.....

Other people you will not reach will be:

1) MCMIS carriers who are listed as active, interstate carriers but who have not had an inspection, crash, MCS-150 update or UCR registration in the last year

2) UCR Universe carriers who did not register in 2009

Some of these carriers might be relatively high-dollar carriers.

UCR registration is a trade-off. You can try to reach MORE carriers and endure more returns, more rejects, etc. or you can concentrate on a higher-probability population (those who registered in 2009, for example) and increase the likelihood that things will go more smoothly.

As a practical matter, I would take a hard look at how much money I collected in 2009 from the population I'm soliciting in 2010. The further I was below my cap, the more I would be inclined to cast a wider net. I'd rather collect more money and have to deal with more bad addresses, out of business carriers, etc. than collect less money and have a "neater" renewal season. But that's just me. "Neatness" might count a whole lot more for you than cash. Your call.

Have a great weekend! Keep looking over your shoulder, Maine! :)

Clawing Our Way To The UCR Crown - Part 2

Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - 1694
Unregistered Carriers on 11/12/2009 - 1709

Okay, so where was I ...? Oh yeah, our strategy for catching up with Maine, which I articulated in the last post as follows:

We're going to try to reduce our unregistered list as much as possible.

Here's my thinking, oversimplified for this illustration:

We need a net reduction of approximately 300 carriers from our unregistered list.

In looking at our unregistered list, we have approximately 350 carriers who haven't updated their MCS-150 in at least two years. Some MCS-150 updates go all the way back to the early part of the millenium. Chances are good that these guys aren't even in business any longer.

Our goal will be to either register or deactivate these 350 carriers over the next three weeks.


We have a procedure we follow for deactivation, depending on whether the carrier is private or for-hire, incorporated or not, intrastate or not, etc. Our due diligence seems to be working because we haven't had any complaints yet regarding "premature deactivation". {:

And while I'm on this subject, I'd like to ask you a question. Which of these three scenarios is most beneficial to improving our registration percentage:

1) registering a carrier who is not on the unregistered list?
2) registering a carrier who IS on the unregistered list?
3) deactivating a carrier on the unregistered list?

In order, the most benefit goes to 2, 3 and 1 respectively. If you're remotely interested in the particular amount of benefit each provides, I'll be happy to share my "research" with you.

With 11 work days left in November, we could catch Maine by the end of the month ... if we reduce our unregistered list by a NET of 20-25 records per day.

So, now you know my strategy! And I have a new mantra, too. With apologies to the late Johnny Cochrane, here it is:

"If you don't registrate ... you must de-activate."

Clawing Our Way To The UCR Crown - Part 1

Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - 1694

In yesterday's "bonus" post (2nd post in the same day), I told you that I would reveal my strategy for catching Maine in this post. In the meantime, a funny thing has happened.

You'll recall that yesterday's percentages were 93% and 91.75% respectively. Well, this morning's percentages are 92.88% and 92.06%!

Yes, as fate would have it, Maine went backwards on the first day of the "competition"! How could that happen? Well, yesterday's percentage for Maine was based on having registered 2,818 carriers and having 212 unregistered. Today's percentage is based on Maine having registered 2,819 carriers and having 216 carriers unregistered.

In other words, Maine registered one carrier --- but their number of unregistered carriers went up by four!

Meanwhile, our numbers for yesterday and today were 19,539/1,757 and 19,558/1,694 respectively.

Notice that our unregistered carriers number went down by 63! This was a direct result of implementing our new strategy. And what is that strategy? Here it is: We're going to work really hard to reduce our unregistered carrier number.

"What???", you ask incredulously. "Yes, that's correct.", I say calmly and with just a hint of reassurance. You retort, somewhat imdignantly, "Tell me how that's different than what you're supposed to have been doing all along." "I will if you'll just calm down." I say soothingly. "But you'll have to wait until tomorrow."

"Happy Veteran's Day" to all of my fellow veterans. Thank you for putting your lives on the line to protect this great country of ours!

The Reign In Maine Falls Mainly Due To My Insane Game!

Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - XXXX

OK, Maine, I'm coming after you. You probably don't know (or care), but I'm coming after you. You have held on to the top registration percentage long enough. It's time for the title to move out here to the Midwest.

Let's review: as of this morning (11/10), Maine is sitting right at 93% and I'm at 91.75%.

What, exactly, does this challenge entail? Let me put it to you this way. With 19,539 carriers registered, my unregistered population would have to be 1,470 - not 1,757 - to be at 93%. That's 287 less unregistered carriers than I have as of this morning. And that's about how much - NET - that I have to reduce my list by in order to be in the running! It's a tall order!

Can we do it? I don't know. But I've got a plan. Tune in tomorrow - or whenever I post again because tomorrow's a holiday - to find out what that plan is.

How Much Is Your Next $100,000 (Of UCR Revenue) Worth To You?

Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757

You know you've been blogging a while when you can't remember if you've written about a topic or not. You know you're lazy if you don't feel like going back through all of your previous posts to find out. And, since the chances are good that not many people will read this blog anyway, you know that I'm just going to "live on the edge" and tell you what's on my mind - and, if it sounds familiar, I'll chalk it up as a "refresher course".

With that grandiose introduction, I'd like to talk to you (again?) about a topic that is near and dear to my heart:

How much is your next $100,000 (of UCR revenue) worth to you?

(Don't get hung up on $100,000 - the number could be $250,000, 500,000 or even $1,000,000.)

In the midst of all the hoopla about the under-collection of UCR revenue, I have asked quite a few people, "How much money would you (or your boss or your agency) spend if you knew that, as a result of spending that money, you would collect an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue?" Again, we could just as well be talking about an additional $200,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 - you pick the number.

Quite honestly, the answers to this question have kind of shocked me... but not really. They fall into several categories - none of them seemingly very good from a UCR program standpoint.

1) "I don't understand the question." (This one troubles me a little!)
2) "I don't know - I'd have to think about it."
3) "I don't know - I'd have to ask my boss."
4) "$0. I can't spend any money at all - no budget appropriation for it."
5) "Is the $100,000 guaranteed?"
6) "Probably not more than $249. Above that, I have to go through 'hell and high water' procurement scrutiny.)

I understand every one of these answers - I just don't like the sound of them very much.

Contrast that question with this question:

"How much money did you spend this year to collect the amount of UCR revenue you collected?"

With a little thought, we can all probably take a shot at that question. In other words, we can calculate how much we have spent per $100,000 of revenue we've already generated ... it's that next $100,000 of revenue that gets tricky.

I could ask the question a different way - "Would you be willing to spend $15,000 every year to virtually guarantee an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue every year?"

From everything I've gathered anecdotally, the answer would probably be "No, thanks." I can then envision the person who answered the question walking off, mumbling, "Would I spend $15,000? Where am I going to get that kind of money? I'm a recipient state, for crying out loud!"

UCR Reconciliation - Wherefore Art Thou?

Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778

Today, I would like to put on my UCR Systems Committee Chairperson hat and point out what I perceive to be a weakness in the overall UCR registration / data exchange system. Please notice that I didn't say a "problem", but rather a "weakness".

Specifically, we have no viable way to reconcile the registration data that are (is?) flowing through our system. It's the kind of thing an auditor would look at and say, "How do you know for sure ...". In this case, the question would be, "How do you know for sure that the data is moving through the system and arriving where it's supposed to arrive accurately?" We're not saying that we KNOW there's a problem. We're just asking how we know that we DON'T have a problem? And the answer is, we don't know that.

Perhaps a financial analogy would be helpful. Any of us who manage sections where money is processed knows that at the end of a processing session, one needs to add up the transactions done, compare the payment instruments processed against the transactions processed and make sure the totals and the details of each match.

We don't have the same kind of reconciliation process with UCR data.

Data gets input and "shipped off", but we don't have any kind of "reconciliation report" to show us that the data traveled and landed appropriately. Admittedly, the data travels a somewhat complicated path. Ten States update both the Feds and Iteris ... on different schedules. The Feds (and Volpe) have their own internal schedule that involves not only MCMIS, but L&I, Safestat, SAFER, UCR and who knows what other systems. Eventually, the data stops traveling ... and hopefully lands where it's supposed to land.

When all is said and done, however, nowhere in the process can we say, "OK, I've got 'X' here and 'X' here. It balances! We're good!" And that strikes me as a weakness.

It's Official - At Least For Today!!

Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762

This morning - according to the Iteris reports - we are 4 registrations ahead of our friends in California. We have registered 19,478 Illinois carriers while California has registered 19,474 California carriers.

On July 1, we were 2,053 registrations behind them.

Registering nearly 20,000 of our own carriers is probably a much bigger feat for us than it is for California because our pool of carriers is much smaller. In order for us to hit that kind of number, our registration percentage also has to be very high - which, at 91.71%, it is.

As I said to Scott Morris yesterday, there's a difference between focusing on something and just showing up. In fact, of all the "Best Practices", focus may be the most important "Best Practice" of all. Focus drives activity AND innovation - how can we get more out of what we're doing?

To those States who might say, "We must be busier than you are because we don't have time to focus on UCR", I would say, "I doubt it". Feel free to call my staff and ask them yourself. In fact, Kathy said to me yesterday, "I can't even imagine what our lives would be like if we were a Recipient State"! (I can - but I don't want to scare her unnecessarily.)

And now, having caught California, we just have one more stop - Maine. Not for the "lobstuh" - although that would be great - but for the highest UCR registration percentage. Can we overcome a 1.23% deficit? As I've written in other posts, I doubt that it's mathematically possible - especially given the time frame. But then, I didn't think we could catch California either!

Fasten your seat belt, Kath'!

UCR Is A Terrific Program!

Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764

I'm getting a little tired of everybody bashing UCR. I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating:

We have done a remarkable job implementing UCR.

We have never received a dime of funding for UCR implementation or administration!

We collate and distribute electronic enforcement information from ten different systems around the country in an extremely effective and timely manner.

We register more carriers than IRP or IFTA.

We have registered just under 75% of the assumed universe of carriers - or at least the assumed universe of carrier "records". This percentage was, at one time, cited by certain industry representatives in public meetings as the threshold number for "a good faith effort" by States, but has now apparently come to represent the States "not doing nearly enough".

I could go on ... but you get the point.

It doesn't hurt to look over our shoulders every once in a while to see how far we've come. And we're only going to get better!

What's Up With California and UCR?

Unregistered Carriers on 10/30/2009 - 1821
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798

I have been interested to read about California's "disenchantment" with the UCR program. I've been even more interested to read about their proposed solutions. But I've been the most interested - and I'm not trying to cast aspersions here - that the criticisms have come from a State that seems to be "part of the problem".

In pursuit of that last point:

As of this morning, California has registered 66.42% of their carriers during the fourteen months of 2009 UCR Registration.

If my recollection serves me correctly: 1) that's a below-average percentage for a UCR participating state, 2) it's only a couple of points higher than a couple of the non-participating states they criticize, and 3) it's 15-20% below many states that do IRP in the same agency as UCR.

In fact, according to the Feds, there are still nearly 10,000 (9,828 to be exact) "active interstate carriers that have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the last year" domiciled in California that have yet to complete 2009 UCR registration.

I know, I know, ..... it's probably 9,828 bad MCMIS records. But it's a heck of a lot more than any of the rest of us have. And it is, after all, one-third of the "alleged" motor carrier population in California.

In defense of California, they have collected revenues over and above their cap. They are, in fact, a Donor state. We don't have enough of those. But, in a state with 30,000 carriers, that's not exactly a colossal feat. And it certainly masks several more important issues.

Look ..... if we had a different law, different rules, and different definitions, UCR would, indeed, be a different program.

If California had their way, UCR would apparently look an awful lot more like IRP. But, if the Feds have their way (PRISM, mandatory DOT numbers, safety for license plates, etc.), IRP might start to take on more of a UCR look - except, of course, for that pesky 26K weight limit and that definition of "interstate carrier" and no paper credential and ... oh, heck with it!

The First Fourteen Months of 2009 UCR Registration

Unregistered Carriers on 10/28/2009 - 1828
Unregistered Carriers on 10/30/2009 - 1821

I noticed today that we have registered over 1,000 carriers this month for 2009 UCR registration. That, in turn, led me to wonder what the numbers looked like for all 14 months to date. Keep in mind that these numbers are just for IL carriers we registered here in Illinois and doesn't include carriers who registered at the UCR site. Here are the numbers:

September 2008 - 4,899
October 2008 - 2,549
November 2008 - 1,418
December 2008 - 2,699
January 2009 - 959
February 2009 - 396
March 2009 - 489
April 2009 - 704
May 2009 - 595
June 2009 - 730
July 2009 - 637
August 2009 - 631
September 2009 - 985
October 2009 - 1,040

I'm still trying to figure out what to make of these numbers, but I think it's interesting that we bottomed out in February and then started picking up steam again in March. This just happens to coincide with the start of the UCR5000 project, which, you may recall, started on March 17, 2008.

So what happened upon the initiation of the UCR5000 project?

One thing did NOT happen - we never did send a mass follow-up mailing per se. In fact, the one thing we started doing in earnest was paying more attention to UCR - using numbers and specific names - and applying a steady amount of "pressure" to the whole area of unregistered carriers.

More specifically, we can identify four primary reasons why this resurgence in registration happened: 1) increased enforcement - both here in Illinois and in other states 2) the initiation of our email effort, which started with Kathy hand-crafting mass emails, and evolved to the UCR-Link Emailer 3) Bill tackling the Unregistered Carrier List and making literally thousands of calls to unregistered carriers and 4) solicitation and registration of new USDOT carriers. (We now consistently carry an 85% registration rate of new USDOT carriers, which has resulted in several thousand registrations since the beginning of 2009).

When all is said and done, I think these numbers point to the idea that if a state did one large mailing and stopped there, they may have missed a ton of carriers who, for whatever reasons, didn't register during the "first wave". Perhaps there's a case - a very real REVENUE case - to be made for persistence!

Different UCR Approaches - Part 6

Unregistered Carriers on 10/27/2009 - 1829
Unregistered Carriers on 10/28/2009 - 1828

WE’LL REGISTER EVERYBODY WHO SHOULD BE REGISTERED

This is the last UCR approach I will write about in this series.

Essentially, this approach says that we will not assume that everybody who should be registered under UCR can be found on a current Federal - or even State - list.

Here's an example:

The other day, one of our officers went to a grain elevator right smack dab here in the middle of the state. The officer was told by the elevator owner that virtually all of the grain that was sold to that elevator was loaded on a rail car and shipped out of state. Therefore, anybody who brought grain to that elevator using a "commercial vehicle" - grain truck, semi, etc. - was a candidate for a USDOT # and a UCR registration. The officer went right down the waiting line of grain trucks and tractor-trailers and handed out warnings and UCR packets to everybody in line.

When these farmers subsequently called in to pursue the issue of registration, they pleaded their respective cases for "exemption":

"I don't leave the state"
"I'm not for-hire"
"I've got farm plates"
"I don't own the grain when it leaves the state"
"I only haul the grain about a mile"
"Nobody's every asked me for this before"
"This is taxation without representation"

When they were finished, we got them a DOT# and registered them - all of them!

The point is this: we would have never encountered these "interstate motor carriers" if one of our officers had not gone to the elevator to see who was showing up there. They're not the kind of folks who normally show up on our "radar" - MCMIS, Unregistered List, etc. - because they don't even have a USDOT number.

Let me quickly add that I don't think these folks were trying to skirt the law. I think they genuinely thought that they couldn't possibly qualify for these programs.

The point here is that WE had to go find THEM. And this is an approach that's way over and above "I'll register whoever shows up".

Is it a better or worse approach? I don't know - I'm just discussing approaches. But if people's expectations are set along the lines of the more involved approach, one can certainly understand disenchantment with the other types of approaches.

Different UCR Approaches - Part 5

Unregistered Carriers on 10/26/2009 - 1873
Unregistered Carriers on 10/27/2009 - 1829

WE’LL REGISTER ALL MCMIS ACTIVE INTERSTATE CARRIERS

Yesterday, we talked about registering the UCR Universe List. Today, we're talking about registering all MCMIS active interstate carriers? What's the difference? It's simple - and huge! The difference is that crazy little one-year activity filter we discussed.

In order to be in the UCR Universe, a carrier not only has to be an "active interstate carrier", but they also have to have an inspection, a crash, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the past 12 months.

When you take away the one-year filter, you now have a whole bunch of MCMIS carrier records that show active interstate carriers, but carriers that show no activity within the last year. And there are a lot of 'em! In Illinois, we have about 20,000 Universe carriers - and about 10,000 more carriers without any activity in the past year!

These "unfiltered" carrier records represent several different possibilities:

1) They may indeed be active interstate carriers who have essentially been operating under the FMCSA radar.

2) They may be companies that are no longer in business but which were never "de-activated" by the Feds.

3) They may be carrier records that are mis-classified.

I'm sure there are other possibilities. The important thing to consider about pursuing these records is that they represent a much lower likelihood of UCR registration precisely because they have no activity in the past year.

The Feds would love for a State to pursue these carriers in order to clarify the status of these records. Our experience to date, unfortunately, has been that we end up de-activating far more of them than we end up registering. So, while we don't consider the effort to have been wasted, we find it's far less productive to pursue this group than to spend our time pursuing the UCR Universe carriers.

Different UCR Approaches - Part 4

Unregistered Carriers on 10/23/2009 - 1833
Unregistered Carriers on 10/26/2009 - 1873

WE’LL REGISTER UCR UNIVERSE CARRIERS
We’re probably all familiar with the phrase “UCR Universe Carriers” by now, but let’s review briefly just to make sure.

The UCR “Universe” came about when the UCR Board needed to take a stab at figuring out which carriers might actually be counted on to register under UCR.

Since UCR is driven by the USDOT number, the Board decided that MCMIS, the database that holds information related to USDOT numbers, would represent the best possible data source in which to start looking for said carriers.

Since MCMIS also contains information on a lot of entities that are 1) exempt from UCR registration (owner-operators and intrastate-only carriers, for example) or 2) no longer active but still showing active, a set of filters had to be established that would point the Board at the carriers with the highest actual likelihood of registering.

The Board decided that filters for this “UCR Universe” should be as follows:

Carriers must be shown in MCMIS as Active Interstate Carriers (all separate pieces of data)

Carriers must also have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the past twelve months.

For states that focus on the UCR Universe List (like IL), it doesn’t mean that we don’t register other carriers or that we don’t go looking for new carriers. The list functions more as a registry of “hot UCR leads”.

Here are two things that states that focus on the UCR Universe List have to keep in mind.

First, the map is not the terrain. The UCR Universe list is a set of database records that may or may not represent real live, breathing, active carriers.

Second, the UCR Universe List only represents carriers that have acquired USDOT numbers. A carrier can’t be in MCMIS without one. If a carrier has never gotten a USDOT number, they’re not in MCMIS – but that doesn't mean they don't need to get a USDOT number and register under UCR. These are the carriers that enforcement frequently encounters before anybody else does and sends to us for registration.

Different UCR Approaches - Part 3

Unregistered Carriers on 10/22/2009 - 1831
Unregistered Carriers on 10/23/2009 - 1833

Approach #3 - WE’LL REGISTER ALL CARRIERS WHO “SHOW UP”

When I talk about states who “register all carriers who ‘show up’”, I am referring to states who believe their job is to wait until carriers “show up” - whether by walking in, by mail or by fax - to take care of compliance. These states do not feel any particular need to go out and “beat the bushes” for carriers - which is the real point of distinction here - because the only carriers they normally deal with come to them.

Take, for example, agencies that, in addition to UCR, also handle IRP (and, to a lesser extent, IFTA). The IRP folks know that their carriers can’t even get out on the road without coming to them. They have the benefit of registering these same carriers for UCR when they come to take care of IRP compliance.

But even many agencies who don’t handle the traditional “they have to come to us” programs have this same approach. “We don’t go out and look for business – business comes to us. If they don’t come to us, we don’t think much about them.”

It has a certain appealing ring to it, right? And if you’ve never had to “generate business” for a living, it makes a ton of sense. Business know that if you open the doors and just wait for the customers, you'll be closing the doors before long.

Personally, I think it raises one of the most interesting questions I’ve encountered lately – what, exactly, is the role of government in this case? Go find ‘em – or wait for them to find you?

Industry has obviously been banging the “States need to go find the carriers” drum hard. The Feds seem to think the States are, for the most part, doing enough.

Either way, I have a couple of issues with this approach.

First, this approach turns a relatively “blind eye” toward everybody who doesn’t “show up”.

“I don’t know if there’s anybody else out there or not - my only job is right here.” OK, we’ve got that. But your agency is responsible for making UCR work in your state. Chances are good that your agency asked for the program.

But, because some of the definitions are different between programs like IRP/IFTA and UCR, the agency that does one program may not even be thinking about other carriers that fit UCR definitions but do not fit IRP/IFTA definitions. So … everybody isn’t inherently going to be coming to you.

For example, what if I work in the IRP section? Are carriers who operate vehicles between 10K and 26K pounds going to show up at my IRP agency? Probably not. So, who will cause these carriers to get a USDOT number and register them for UCR? Nobody. Do you really think that one or two mailings are sufficient to bridge that gap?

And, if that same state is low on enforcement resources – or if those enforcement resources are mostly focused on issues other than UCR – that state could be teeming with potential UCR candidates that will probably never register. Heck, despite your one or two letters, many of them will still never have heard of UCR.

Second, it dramatically increases the likelihood of under-collecting UCR revenue.

If I’m short of revenue, my main recourse appears to be: I guess I’ll just sit here and wring my hands - and hope more people show up. Good luck with that! Sometimes, you just have to go out and find the money. We have a lot more recipient states than donor states. Maybe it’s time to consider another approach.

Third, you may have an "artificially high" registration percentage.

I say "artificially high" because if you only UCR register carriers who come to you for plates - you SHOULD have a high UCR percentage. But it may not be a representation of how many of your state's carriers should be registered especially if you have weak roadside enforcement. I'll talk more about this concern in upcoming posts.

Next time, I’m going to talk about “Registering the UCR Universe Carriers”.

Different UCR Approaches - Part 2

Unregistered Carriers on 10/21/2009 - 1841
Unregistered Carriers on 10/22/2009 - 1831

Yesterday, we talked about doing the least amount possible. Today, we're going to discuss:

WE’LL REGISTER UNTIL WE HIT OUR CAP

Obviously, this can only happen in a state that is looking forward to actually hitting their cap – which is clearly the exception rather than the rule these days. More power to you on hitting that cap! But we need to talk.

This approach – like Approach #1 - is perfectly understandable from the standpoint of the state adopting this approach. Why continue to collect revenue that you can’t keep? Heck with that!

But this approach flies in the face of a - no, make that THE - central premise of UCR participation – if Donor States don’t keep collecting after they’ve hit their cap, then many Recipient States are doomed to remain in a deficit situation. We’re in this together, folks!

Consider the plight of a small state that has a legitimate entitlement of $2MM dollars.

Suppose that even if every carrier in their state registered - that's EVERY CARRIER (100% Registration) - they would only collect $1.5MM from their own carriers. Where does the other $.5MM come from? You guessed it - you!

“That’s not my problem” says the state taking this approach (you). Au contraire, mon frère! (That’s French for “What are you thinking???”) It is, in fact, your problem. You … and every other Donor State.

If your state is considering the "We'll keep collecting until we hit our cap" approach, consider how you will feel about this same issue if you don’t hit your cap next year. I predict that you will pray like crazy that all those Donor States will keep collecting money so that you will keep getting checks from the depository generated from the excess collections of – you know who - those wild and crazy Donor States!

Tune in tomorrow for Approach #3 - "We'll Register Everybody Who Shows Up At Our Door."

Exploring Different UCR Approaches - Part 1

Unregistered Carriers on 10/20/2009 - 1867
Unregistered Carriers on 10/21/2009 - 1841

As I indicated yesterday, I'm going to do a series of posts on different State approaches to UCR.

Approach #1 - LET’S DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE

This approach is more understandable than might be apparent at first blush. It doesn’t mean “Let’s do next to nothing.” It means “Let’s do as little as we have to do so that people can't say that we're not doing anything.”

There are a variety of legitimate reasons why agencies might take this approach.

Maybe the agency is not getting much UCR money.

Some states are NOT getting millions of dollars in UCR revenue. In fact, some states aren’t getting enough revenue from the program to pay for setting up a decent UCR program ... if you figure that a "decent program" includes Registration, Administrative Enforcement and Roadside Enforcement.

Maybe the agency just doesn’t have enough internal resources.

In some cases, revenue isn't the problem, but States just don’t have the headcount to do much – especially in this economy. “I’ve got two people – and, in addition to UCR, those two people also have to accomplish X, Y and Z!”

Maybe the agency doesn’t know much about the UCR program.

In some cases, the program has shifted from one agency to the other. Maybe the first agency knew a lot about UCR, but the second agency has inherited the program without inheriting the people who understood the history or the objectives of the program – but they’re too proud or too whatever to ask for help. Maybe they don't even WANT the program - but got stuck with it anyway.

There are probably more reasons why "Let's do as little as possible" might be the approach of choice for a State, but these three give you an idea of why it may not a totally unreasonable or irresponsible approach.

Would we be better off without states that take this approach? I don't think so. That would just turn them into non-participating states --- which, in my opinion, is even worse. I think we'd be much better off trying to either 1) help them increase their performance or 2) get them to allow somebody else to take over where they leave off. I realize there's no precedent for that yet, but it's probably in everybody's best interest to explore the issue more.

Tomorrow, I'm going to discuss states who take the approach, "We're only going to register carriers until we hit our cap."

What Did UCR Participating States Agree To Do?

Unregistered Carriers on 10/19/2009 - 1891
Unregistered Carriers on 10/20/2009 - 1867

In the interest of brevity, I'm not going to spend time exploring the subtle nuances of our respective Participation Agreements. I'm going to cut to the chase and say that from a "States aren't doing enough" performance standpoint, States agreed to do two things in their Participation Agreement: register carriers and enforce the UCR program.

The enforcement issue has been pretty well vetted. I would argue that the States are doing quite a bit, but I don't intend that to be a provocation. "Quite a bit" may not equate to "enough" - but then "enough" has never really been defined.

States enforce at least two different ways: administrative and roadside. Administrative enforcement varies depending upon the agency administering the UCR program. Most agencies withhold whatever they can withhold - plates, tags, authorities - if a carrier has not registered for UCR. Roadside enforcement varies from State to State depending on resources, laws, etc. Again, this issue has been hashed and rehashed. No need to go into it here.

What I'd really like to get to is the subject of UCR registration. In my opinion, when we signed our respective Participation Agreements, I think we each agreed to do an "honorable" job of UCR registration in exchange for our "entitlement" funds. I believe that we agreed to be responsible for doing our part. The question has become, "What, exactly, did we agree to be responsible for?"

I'm going to hazard an attempt to define our responsibilities under UCR. It goes something like this:

I believe we are responsible for registering ALL carriers that the rest of the states are counting on us to register - whether they be in our own state, in non-participating states or in Mexico or Canada.

ALL of them! Too ambitious? Personally, I don't think so. Can we accomplish that? No, at least not in the literal sense. But from the standpoint of establishing responsibility, I think it's accurate. I know that very few states would agree with me - in fact, it's entirely possible that nobody agrees with me. But as we deviate from that lofty goal of total registration, it becomes a "slippery slope". And we will definitely act differently if we are trying to register ALL of them than if our goal is to register most, some or a few of them.

Over the next few days, I will discuss a variety of approaches that States appear to be taking with regard to their registration responsibilities under UCR. They are not judgments. They are not critiques. They are merely observations that I hope will be helpful in evaluating our collective registration effort ... at a time when our collective registration effort is "under fire".

Tune in tomorrow when I will explore the first of these approaches: Let's do as little as possible.

What Is A UCR State's "Real" Responsibility?

Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1901
Unregistered Carriers on 10/19/2009 - 1891

I'm not going to keep doing the Pre-Add/Post-Add thing I referred to in my last post because it gets a little confusing, but I would like to point out that we added 62 new carriers over the weekend, which essentially "nullified" a great registration total on Friday. So far in October (11 work days), we have registered 673 carriers and taken in $51K.

This week, I'd like to share some observations about a participating state's responsibilities under the UCR program. Before I do, I'd like to once again point out that I see very few right or wrong answers regarding this issue, so I'm certainly not trying to point fingers or find fault. It's just a discussion.

We've all heard the mantra "the States aren't doing enough". But how do we know? Who defined "enough"? And, more importantly, how did they define it? Do any two of us - industry or state - even agree on a definition of "enough"?

Meanwhile, some UCR programs sit in DMV's, some in PUC's, some in Revenue Departments, some in DOT's ... and each of those types of agencies has its own definition of "enough" as it pertains to getting their constituents into compliance. Some of these entities conduct more than one program under their respective roofs(?) - IRP, IFTA, UCR, Intrastate Authority, MCSAP, etc. Some entities, like us, had never dealt with private carriers at all until UCR.

All of this is the backdrop for tomorrow's discussion - a litany of current and potential "attitudes" about UCR. I think you'll find that all of these "attitudes" have some merit. You might also find, as I have, that your own State's "attitude" might make sense for you, but not for other states.

UCR - TWTWTW

Unregistered Carriers on 10/15/2009 - 1904
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1861 (Pre-Adds)
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1901 (Post-Adds)

TWTWTW - That Was The Week That Was - TW3. Remember that old TV show? In truth, I never actually watched the show - I just thought the title was cool. And this has definitely been an interesting week. Not only did we get to do a couple of Live Meeting sessions about UCR - new technology, a chance to reach some folks who might need assistance , etc. - but, here in Illinois, we also registered a BUNCH of carriers.

I added an extra statistic to the post today in order to highlight what I've been saying about the "cornucopia of registrations" (see yesterday's title) we've been experiencing. Notice that I show both a "Pre-Adds" number and a "Post-Adds" number. Iteris runs the daily "Registration Percentage" report that most of us are familiar with very early each morning. That report gives us the "Pre-Adds" number. Then, at some point after they update that report, the Feds send them more data - new USDOT numbers, etc. - and the unregistered number for each state changes. 40 carriers got added back to Illinois' number after the report was run this morning. 40!!! So, even though we registered more than 60 carriers again yesterday, our Unregistered List went down by a whopping three carriers! Actually, that's very cool, but when you're trying to "get to zero", it's a challenge! A good challenge, though.

By the way, not that I'm watching this number closely or anything, but we are only 378 registrations behind California as of this morning. Unlike a couple of months ago, I now feel strongly that we'll catch them - unless, of course, they actually find out about this game and bury me! Competitions are so much easier when only one side knows about them!! The beauty of a silly competition like this, however, is that it motivates me to find new, more effective ways to get better. So, thanks to states like California, Maine (and a few others!), we're evolving a great set of tools and processes that I'm hoping will benefit everybody one of these days.

Have a great weekend!

Californicopia

Unregistered Carriers on 10/13/2009 - 1964
Unregistered Carriers on 10/15/2009 - 1904

Sorry you didn't hear from me yesterday. I tried all day to write a UCR blog post, but the site was unavailable. We're here now, though, so let's get started.

On July 17, 2009, I wrote about my "My Secret Stretch Goal" - which was to register more Illinois carriers than California registered California carriers because they were - and still are - in first place.

Specifically, I wrote:

"California has registered 18,023 carriers as of this morning's Iteris report. We have registered 16,074 - so we're 1,949 registrations behind them. But they still have a pool of 10,165 unregistered carriers, while we only have 3,006. You can see the problem. Even I register all of my unregistered guys - my "getting to zero" goal - I'll only have a total of 19,000 UCR registrations. CA only has to register another 1,000 guys to beat me. As I said, it's just a fun goal anyway. The more carriers we all register, the better."

So, here we are three months later ... and the numbers are intriguing --- at least to me!

As of this morning, CA has registered 19,203 carriers - EXACTLY 1,000 more carriers than they had on July 17th - and IL has registered 18,799 carriers, so we're only 404registrations apart vs. 1,949 in July. That's cool all by itself. But ... the amazing thing is that we've still got 1,904 unregistered carriers left! And we've deactivated a lot of guys since July.

Let's summarize the intriguing part: we've registered 2700+ carriers since July 17th, but we've only reduced our Unregistered List by 1100 carriers. That's a differential of 1600 carriers in 90 days! And, if you have been following this blog, you know that there's no sign of a letup. We registered 80 carriers yesterday - and only reduced our U/L by 60. That's becoming a daily event!

What a country!!!!

The UCR Business is (Too) Good!

Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881
Unregistered Carriers on 10/13/2009 - 1964

Do you remember late last week when I only had 1881 carriers on my Unregistered List? And then, do you remember in the last post when I told you we had already registered 393 carriers so far in October? Imagine my surprise, then, when I came in this morning and found that we now have 1964 unregistered carriers! Somehow, we added 83 more carriers to our Unregistered List over the long weekend! And most of those 83 carriers were new USDOT numbers! Go figure! We heard from a walk-in customer today that one of our IL state troopers went on local radio and announced that the state police were going to start sitting on grain elevators and writing tickets, so that may have caused another rush. At any rate, we're getting lots more new carriers in here - business is definitely good!

Meanwhile, as incredible as it sounds, we are now only 518 registrations behind California. Not very long ago (August or so?), it was 1500! We have now registered a whopping 18,646 Illinois carriers, with California sitting at 19,164. And I have a strange feeling that we are going to add a lot more new USDOT numbers and UCR registrations before the year is over. Look out, CA!

UCR October-to-Date

I've been reflecting on the week just past. No, make that the nine days just past - specifically 10/1 thru 10/9.

We've already registered 393 carriers (revenue - $28,481) in October. There have been only seven business days so far in October, which gives us an average of 56+ registrations a day at an average of over $70 per registration - and that's with no registrations over $231. At this rate, we'll do over 1,000 registrations of Illinois carriers this month and generate over $70,000 - with no special mailings or heroic efforts.

This past week, I made an informal presentation to Bill Leonard using a Webinar tool called Live Meeting. With Live Meeting, a person in New York (Bill) can be looking at the desktop of a person in Illinois (Me) while the person in Illinois (Me) demonstrates different stuff to the person in New York (Bill) - and, potentially, a dozen of their closest associates (You). We're just getting started with the tool, but I can already foresee the ability to demonstrate (and maybe even record) some UCR "best practice" tools and techniques for groups of State folks. It's pretty exciting stuff. Stay tuned for more on that subject.

Tools of the UCR Trade - Part 6

Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881
Unregistered Carriers on 10/09/2009 - 1868

New USDOT Carrier Solicitation
------------------------------
I know that people are tired of hearing me talk about this, but I still believe that States that monitor, solicit and CAUSE new USDOT carriers do better at UCR. Wait a minute, Dave, did you say "cause" new USDOT carriers? Yep, that's what I said! Let's talk about that for a minute. Some UCR agencies are really lousy - at least if you look at the registration percentages - at registering new USDOT carriers. Other UCR agencies are very good. Others still have very small numbers of new USDOT carriers.

Consider these factors:

If your state doesn't enforce UCR on the road, I'm betting that you are not going to discover a lot of carriers who need, but don't have, USDOT numbers. What's the connection to UCR? You've got me - there are thousands of guys who should have USDOT numbers who have been running around for years without being asked for one. That's not a new law - mid-1980's to be exact. This is particularly true for carriers who are exempt from interstate authority. If you do actively enforce the UCR program, for whatever reasons, you will "cause" plenty of new USDOT numbers.

Who looks at carriers between 10K and 26K pounds? IRP and IFTA don't. But if your state does road enforcement, you know there are lots of those guys who need USDOT numbers in that group. You're just not going to find them if you're sitting in the IRP or IFTA office, that's all. But a little road enforcement - and a little word of mouth - will "cause" lots of new USDOT numbers.

And, after you "cause" them to get a DOT number, you register them right on the spot! As I've mentioned in other posts, we actually help carriers get USDOT numbers here in our office because we know that they will also register for UCR before they leave. I need to point out here that we are not restricted to waiting for their USDOT number to show up on SAFER or in the Indiana system as your state may be, but that's just a formality anyway. It just means that you can't finish the registration/upload process until the next day. I can't remember a single instance where we proactively registered a guy and they were stopped before SAFER knew about it. We would, of course, vouch for the guy if that ever happened.

On another note: we are now only 555 registrations behind CA and closing fast!

Have a great weekend!

Tools of The UCR Trade - Part 5

Unregistered Carriers on 10/07/2009 - 1873
Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881

Working The Phone ... Proactively
---------------------------------
As mundane as "working the phone" sounds, it is vital for somebody to be contacting carriers - particularly the larger carriers - to make sure they get registered. Why? It's not necessarily what you might think - more revenue. In many cases, the UCR registration form gets sent to "somebody" in the organization, but frequently,it's not the right "somebody". Usually, a follow-up phone call can establish who "manages the trucks" and the real contact work can begin.

While all of us in Illinois talk on the phone all day long, one of our staff members, Bill, has the specific assignment of contacting the largest unregistered carriers to make sure they get the message. Every week or so, we sort the current Unregistered List to see who's still on the list and to see if new larger carriers have been added via a "sideways" addition ... or for any other reason why a carrier with 30 power units would just "pop up" on our list. Over time, Bill has also deactivated a lot of carriers as a result of trying to contact them and then subsequently researching them and finding that there is no sign of life.

Nothing highlights the fact that these listings are merely MCMIS records - and not necessarily "real live carriers" - than this "working the phone" process. We've deactivated hundreds of these "carriers". And remember - a deactivation is as good as a registration when it comes to the Unregistered List!

Tools of the UCR Trade - Part 4

Unregistered Carriers on 10/06/2009 - 1907
Unregistered Carriers on 10/07/2009 - 1873

OK - back to the Tools of the UCR Trade.

Today, I'd like to talk about the eMailer. You have already heard me talk about how we're using the eMailer during the current registration year. But that's during the tail end of a registration year.

Think about this: we are coming up on a new registration year. As you know, we have 20,000+ carriers here in Illinois. About 40% - or 8,000 of them - have email addresses. What if we could email 8,000 of our 20,000 carriers and direct them to the Indiana site to register? First, we figure that saves us about $8,000 in renewal mailing costs. Eight thousand dollars!!! Next, some of them will self-register as a result of the link that's in the email. More savings. Finally, we can regulate how many emails go out every day. This means that we can send, for example, 500 emails a day for 16 days - the eMailer works Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays without complaining (unlike Kathy, who whines about working Monday through Friday) - so we can effortlessly control the flow of emails and mitigate the work load a little.

What's not to like about that? Oh, and I forgot to mention the most important thing about the emailer: if the carrier doesn't register within 15 days, we send them another email every 15 days until they DO register! Is that a thing of beauty, or what??? Thank you Chris and Cody!!