WPCTB ĎuB8^ҥ]*XflM8,-;|VDu)%#:LK̂[NmΣ)gvt3UE 8 &.fce aOʍp7saϦ6md΃-U\nuu`p:F#t܁bUZGF6_ey38!CΦ ghsU9>N"Sը֜1g \fw (*tADMYY2({_DZ} mo&PObU\2DP$#;s`UGaEl;ռ 1S^RTͻ /K'/B0\# %U> 0G UFT  ^ w4zNCE mG 0U^ 0 0 0j 0/ 0 0 0Z 0 0 0O 0 0 0 0E 0 0 0( 0 0J 0  0 0 04! 0! 0v" 0# 0# 0*$ 0$ 0% 0>X& 0& 0' 0p( 0R) 04* 0+ 0+ 0, 02- 0- 0:. 0Y. 0_E/ 0 / 00 002 B*64 D/`4 D+4 04 D/6 06 067 07 0:8 0^59 0<9 1e9U64:U>j:U*: 1u: 72G;y; 0D>a> 0N?U8<@UNt@E@U@fB BBa8BbLBHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular(C$XrXXXԶL 9Z+.Courier New Regular AMORELLOMIHOSGertnerTorruella SaiaAloisiKochanskyZPassGorskiDeptHishonServsAssnNatlNatsios MfrsConcannonaffd SysEnvtlf]orbiddenHazeltinebaitfishCommnCaraboneClarkstownAssns t]heidispositiveu]nderMcLeod J.E.Dilworth SDDSd]espiteconclusory R.J. decisionmaking decisionmakersII.B.VanderburghEZAllstonCommr MgmtSchwarzer FLDPU.S.CONSTLimbach O.Brminimuse]achFASTLANErguingcharg[esunapportionedtreat[sScheinerresult[sundiscounted FDLPAm.CompComr Agrif/s M/ +003|x    ' USDC0USDC .   U*+ (_2623  ..((2$ C!X9XXX    =9Xdd=    0  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKK<6X9`(Courier NewKSL\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KK<6X9`(Courier NewKSL\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KK<6X9`(Courier NewKSL\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7@(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?M%2A`Arial?  SL\  `&Times New RomanS7A(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d?)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7C(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?M%2A`Arial?  SL\  `&Times New RomanS7A(X75+ ` hp x 5  ?)2dxd0KS.SampleKK<6X9`(Courier NewKSL\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKK<6X9`(Courier NewKSL\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ni)  $XqXXX  =qXdd=    2    _=qXXdXd=TXqXXXqBecausewefindotherargumentstofullysupportMTAs  position,wedonotaddressthemarketparticipantissue.MTA  contendsthatthedormantCommerceClausedoesnotevenapplyto \ thiscasebecauseofthemarketparticipantexception.SeeReeves, 2 Inc.v.Stake,449U.S.429(1980).(#$  0    $XqXXX  =qXdd=    1    _=qXXdXd=TXqXXXqEZPassistheequivalentelectronictollpaymentsystem  usedbytheStateofNewYork.(O$<4 9Z+ Courier New vr Z6Times New Roman Regular K $XqXXX  =qXdd=    *    _=qXXdXd=OftheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,sittingby  designation. dTABLE A- - C!XqXXX  _  *,X` XX*=qXXdd=  TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !UXXXXqU=XUX   UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#UXXU=y#UxXUX  FortheFirstCircuit #G_UxZ#G_G_#XqXG_#  AYV) ` dE<` A   #XqXXXqi#No.031312     PETERA.DORAN,individuallyandonbehalfof K  allotherssimilarlysituated;WENDYE.SAUNDERS; ! q individuallyandonbehalfofallotherssimilarlysituated,  G  @@Plaintiffs,Appellants,   @@tt)v. O  @@ MASSACHUSETTSTURNPIKEAUTHORITY; K  MATTHEWAMORELLO;CHRISTYMIHOS;JORDANLEVY, ! @@Defendants,Appellees. } AYV) ` dE<(` A )y @@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ^ @@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 4 @@P P [Hon.NancyGertner,U.S.DistrictJudge]  AYV) ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q @@((Torruella,CircuitJudge,  Howard,CircuitJudge, y! andSchwarzer,W Q#  *      ׀SeniorDistrictJudge. %!u# AYV) ` dE<#` A #&      ` StephenV.Saiawasonbriefforappellants. $(  ` JoshuaM.Davis,withwhomJamesA.Aloisi,Jr.and b% ) PeterN.Kochansky,wasonbriefforappellees. 8&!* *XYZddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4#   SIH(#- @@37930@@S November6,2003 )n$/  RHC)D%0" @@37930 @@ R ," H(#1 ? ,* ![8qXXdd8 ` TXqXXXq SCHWARZER,SeniorDistrictJudge. PeterA.Doranand  WendyE.Saundersbroughtthisactionunder42U.S.C.1983 x againsttheMassachusettsTurnpikeAuthority,itschairmanand $t membersofitsboard(collectively, MTA).Plaintiffscomplain   thattheFASTLANEDiscountProgram( FLDPor program) |  establishedbyMTAviolatesthedormantCommerceClauseofthe ( x  UnitedStatesConstitution.U.S.Const.art.I,8,cl.3.That $  programpermitsdriversofautomobilesequippedwithatransponder   soldbyMTAtopassthroughcertaintollplazasandtunnelsinthe ,|  Bostonareaforadiscountedtollwhichiselectronically ( collected.Plaintiffscontendthattheprogramdiscriminates  againstnonresidentsofMassachusettsanddoesnotservea 0 legitimatelocalinterest.Thedistrictcourtdismissedthe , complaintunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6)for  failuretostateaclaimonwhichreliefcanbegranted.Itheld 4 thattheFLDPdidnotdiscriminateagainstoutofstateresidents 0 anddidnotexcessivelyburdeninterstatecommerce.Thedistrict   courthadjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1331and1343,andwe 8!" havejurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1291.Forthereasons "4$ discussedbelow,weaffirm. $&   FACTUALANDPROCEDURALHISTORY  <&!(    ` InMarch1997MassachusettsGovernorWilliamWeldsigned (T#* theMetropolitanHighwaySystemsbillauthorizingMTAtoincrease )%, tollsattheAllstonBrightonandRoute128tollplazasfrom$.50 \+&. to$1.00,andattheTedWilliamsTunnelandtheSumnerTunnelfrom  $2.00to$3.00.Therevenuefromthesetollincreaseswouldhelp \ financeBostonsCentralArtery/ThirdHarborTunnelProject, X commonlyknownasthe BigDig.Thatprojectaimstobury   stretchesofInterstate93beneaththecityandextendInterstate `  90toLoganInternationalAirport.MTAisresponsiblefor  \  generatingthroughtollsapproximately$1.5billionofthenearly   $6billionneededtocompleteworkontheInterstate90segment. d   ` Thetollincreasewasscheduledtogointoeffecton `  January1,2002.Inresponsetopublicopposition,MTApostponed   theincreaseandproposedtoimplementaResidentOnlyDiscount h Program,underwhichstateresidentswhodroveautomobilesequipped d withFASTLANEtransponderswouldreceivetolldiscountsof$.25at  theAllstonBrightonandRoute128tollplazasand$.50atthe l tunnels. h  ` TheFASTLANEsystemallowsvehiclesequippedwitha  transpondertopassthroughtollplazaswithouthavingtostopand p  pay.ParticipantsmustpurchaseatransponderfromMTAfor$27.50. !l" Thetransponderisasmallplasticdeviceattachedtothe "$ windshield.ItsignalsthecarsidentitytoanMTAfacilitywhich t$& automaticallychargesthetolltothedriversaccount.Drivers  &p!( generallyassigntheiraccounttotheircreditcardwhichisbilled '#* $20attheoutset;thereafter,tollsarededucteduntil$10 x)$, remains,atwhichpointanadditional$10isbilledtoreplenish $+t&. theaccount.Carsequippedwithtranspondersusedinothercities  that"liketheEZPasssystem"areinteroperable,maydrivethrough \ FASTLANEtollgateswithoutstopping,butdonotreceive X discounts.R Q#  1           ` BeforetheResidentOnlyDiscountProgramwentinto `  effect,a ` newspaperarticlequestionedwhetheritviolatedthe  \  dormantCommerceClauseoftheConstitution.Inresponse,MTA   modifiedtheprogramtoapplytoalldriversofautomobiles, d  residentornot,equippedwithFASTLANEtransponders.MTAs `  chairmannotedthatasaresultafewthousandoutofstateFAST   LANEsubscribers,mostofwhomcommutefromConnecticut,would h becomeeligiblefordiscounts. d  ` OnJuly4,2002,plaintiffDorandrovethroughthe  AllstonBrightonandRoute128tollplazas.DoranisaVermont l residentwhodidnotsubscribetotheFLDP,sohepaidthefull h tolls.OnJuly5,plaintiffSaundersdrovethroughthesametoll  plazas.SheisaNewYorkresidentwhohadanEZPassbutnoFAST p  LANEtransponder,soshealsopaidthefulltolls. !l"  ` DoranandSaundersthenfiledthisactionallegingthat "$ MTAsdiscountsystemviolatesthedormantCommerceClause,and t$&  movedforapreliminaryinjunction.Findingthatthecomplaint  &p!( failedtostateaclaim,thedistrictcourtgrantedMTAsmotionto  dismiss. \    & < DISCUSSION  X   I.0 ` STANDARDOFREVIEW  ` (#` (# e ` Wereview thegrantofamotiontodismissdenovo'<$,   takingtheallegationsinthecomplaintastrueandmakingall D   reasonableinferencesinfavorofplaintiff.Rockwellv.CapeCod @  Hosp.,26F.3d254,255(1stCir.1994).However,wearenot   requiredtoacceptlegalconclusions.NewEnglandCleaning H  Servs.v.AmericanArbitrationAssn,199F.3d542,545(1stCir. D 1999).AmotiontodismissunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure  12(b)(6)shouldsucceedonlywhen itisclearthatnoreliefcould L begrantedunderanysetoffactsthatcouldbeprovedconsistent H withtheallegation.Gorskiv.NewHampshireDeptofCorr.,290  F.3d466,473(1st.Cir.2002)(citingHishonv.King&Spalding, P 467U.S.69,73(1984)). L  II.0 ` THEMERITS ` s#` s#  ` TheCommerceClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution p!" grantsCongressthepowerto regulateCommerce...amongthe #l$ severalStates.U.S.Const.art.I,8,cl.3.TheCommerce $ & Clause notonlygrantsCongresstheauthoritytoregulatecommerce t&!( amongtheStates,butalsodirectlylimitsthepoweroftheStates  (p#* todiscriminateagainstinterstatecommerce.NewEnergyCo.v. )%, Limbach,486U.S.269,273(1988).This dormantCommerceClause x+&.  prohibitseconomicprotectionism"thatis,regulatorymeasures  designedtobenefitinstateeconomicinterestsbyburdeningoutof \ statecompetitors.Id.Wemustdecidewhetherplaintiffshave X statedaclaimthattheFLDPoffendsthedormantCommerceClause.    ` Plaintiffsadvancefourcontentionsinsupportoftheir `  claim:  \   ` 1)ThattheFLDPimposesanonuniformandnoncompensatory   userfeeunrelatedtoactualhighwayusage; d   ` 2)Thatitisdiscriminatoryonitsfaceorinpractical `  effect;    ` 3)Thatitdoesnotservealegitimatelocalinterest h unrelatedtoeconomicprotectionism;and d  ` 4)Thatitscumulativeeffectsoncommerce,byshifting  highwaycoststononresidents,areexcessive.AppellantsBr.at l 9. h  ` Weaddresseachofthesecontentionsinturn.P Q#  2         `  ` A.8 TheFLDPDoesNotImposea p  NonuniformandNoncompensatory F ! UserFee!l" { {  ` PlaintiffsarguethattheFLDPviolatestheCommerce "$ Clausebecauseitdoesnotchargeeveryuserthesameamountfor t$& identicaluseandbecausethediscountisnonuniform,  &p!( noncompensatoryandunrelatedtoactualhighwayusageortospecific  servicesprovidedbyMTA.Tobeginwith,theargumentisfactually \ flawed.TheFLDPisavailableonidenticaltermstodriverswithout X regardtotheirresidence;theprogramincorporatesnodistinctions   orclassificationsbasedonresidenceandparticipationisopento `  anyone.Thebenefitsofthediscountprogramaccruesimplyon  \  accountofadriversfrequencyofuse.Thefrequentdriverwill   receiveagreateramountofdiscountsthantheinfrequentdriver, d  butheorshewill,ofcourse,alsopayacorrespondinglygreater `  amountintolls.    ` ItistruethattoparticipateintheFLDP,adrivermust h purchaseatransponderfor$27.50.Therighttopurchaseisnot d restrictedtoresidents,butisopentoall.Thedecisionwhether  todosoturnsononesanticipatedfrequencyofuse.Thedistance l adriverlivesfromBostonwillbeafactor,butnottheonly h factor,affectingthefrequencywithwhichheorsheislikelyto  drivethroughthetollplazasorthetunnels.Butthefrequency p  calculuscreatesnoresidentversusnonresidentclassification.The !l" geographicalrealityisthatacommuterfromProvidence,RIor "$ Manchester,NHisnomoredistantfromBostonthanonefrom t$& Worcester,MA;acommuterfromHartford,CNorPortland,MEisno  &p!( furtherfromBostonthanonefromSpringfield,MA;andresidentsof '#* citiesinWesternMassachusettssuchasPittsfieldarefurtherthan x)$, residentsofanyofthesemajoroutofstatepopulationcenters. $+t&. Thus,plaintiffsclaimthatMTA charg[es]millionsofnon  residentsahighercostpermilefortravelingtheexactsame \ distance,AppellantsBr.at10,ispurefiction.Thetollis X higherfornonparticipantsthanforparticipants,regardlessof   wheretheylive.Thus,manyinfrequentnonparticipatingdrivers `  livinginandaroundBostonwillpayahighertollforwhatever  \  distancestheymaydrivethancommutersfrom,say,Manchester,   ProvidenceorPortlandwhohavechosentoparticipate. d    ` Plaintiffs relyprincipallyonAmericanTruckingAssnv. `  Scheiner,483U.S.266(1987),tosupporttheirargument.Thatcase ( involvedthevalidityofflattaxesimposedontrucks.Pennsylvania  firstrequiredownersoftrucksoperatingonitsroadstopurchase 0 anidentificationmarker.Forvehiclesnotregisteredin , Pennsylvaniathefeewas$25,whileownersofvehiclesregistered  inPennsylvaniawerenotrequiredtopaythefee.Later, 4 Pennsylvaniareducedthemarkerfeeto$5andinstitutedanaxletax 0 onalltrucksaboveacertainweight.Atthesametime,itreduced   theregistrationfeeforinstatetrucksinanamountidenticalto 8!" thenewaxletax,therebyeliminatingtheeffectoftheaxletaxon "4$ instatevehicles.Theseflattaxeswereassessedannuallywithout $& regardtothenumberofmilestraveledonPennsylvaniaroads.Id. <&!(  at27475,28182. '8#*  ` TheCourtstatedthattheissuewaswhetherthemethods  bywhichtheflattaxesareassesseddiscriminateagainstsome \ participantsininterstatecommerceandheld: X  8 ` Wefinddispositivethoseofourprecedents   whichmakeclearthattheCommerceClause   prohibitsaStatefromimposingaheaviertax `  burdenonoutofstatebusinessesthatcompete 6   inaninterstatemarketthanitimposesonits  \  ownresidentswhoalsoengageincommerceamong  2  States. ` `  YCId.at282.AlthoughtheCourtsdiscussioninScheinerlargely d  focusesonthevalidityofanunapportionedflattaxontrucks,the `  decisionrestsonthepremisethattheimpositionofthe   Pennsylvaniataxdidnottreatinterstateandintrastateinterests h evenhandedly.Thus,thecaseisnotapposite.TheFLDPdoesnot d imposeaheavierburden"tollorotherwise"onoutofstateresidents.  PlaintiffsdiscussionoftheCourtsanalysisofpotentialdefenses l ofthePennsylvaniaschemeand,inparticular,theuserfeedefense, h isthereforenotrelevant.TheCourtsrejectionofthat  defense"basedonthefactthatPennsylvaniastaxesdiscriminate p  againstoutofstatevehicles"affordsnosupporttoplaintiffs !l" claimthatMTAsnondiscriminatingprogramviolatestheCommerce "$ Clause. t$&  ` Moreover,theFLDPbearsnoresemblancetoPennsylvanias  &p!( flattax.Asplaintiffsargue,thePennsylvaniataximposedforthe '#* privilegeofusingPennsylvaniaroadsdiscriminatedbecausethat x)$, privilegewasmorevaluabletoresidentsthannonresidents.The $+t&. tollsinissuehere,incontrast,areimposedonaperusebasis.  Theyareimposedonlywhenthedriveractuallyusesthetollplazas \ ortunnelsandaredirectlyproportionaltothatuse.Asthe X Scheinercourtputit, [s]olongasaStatebasesitstaxona   relevantmeasureofactualroaduse,obviouslybothinterstateand `  intrastate[drivers]payaccordingtothefacilitiesinfact  \  providedbytheState,andtheprogramplacesnoundueburdenon   interstatecommerce.Seeid.at291(quotingCapitolGreyhound d  Linesv.Brice,339U.S.542,557(1950)(Frankfurter,J., `  dissenting)).   Ѐ  ` Evenifweweretotreatthesehighwaytollsasanalogous h toaflattax,asplaintiffsappeartoargue,MTA treat[s][in d stateandoutofstate]vehicleswithanevenhand.Seeid.at  282.Tollsarethesameforbothkindsofvehiclesandeachis l eligibletoparticipateinthediscountprogram.Thattheincentive h toparticipatevariesacrossdriversdoesnotmaketheprogram  discriminatory.Thatincentive affectslocalandoutofstate p  vehiclesinpreciselythesameway,andthusdoesnotimplicatethe !l" CommerceClause.Id.at283n.15.Thus,contrarytoplaintiffs "$ contention,theprogramdoesnotfailScheinersinternal t$& consistencytest.AppellantsBr.at22.AstheCourtputit,if  &p!( morethanonestateadoptedasimilardiscountprogram,theCommerce '#* Clauseissatisfiedwheretheprogramswould maintainstate x)$, boundariesasaneutralfactorineconomicdecisionmaking.Id. $+t&. at28283;seealsoid.at284( Topasstheinternal  inconsistencytest,astatetaxmustbeofakindthat,ifapplied \ byeveryjurisdiction,therewouldbenoimpermissibleinterference X withfreetrade.);AmericanTruckingAssn,Inc.v.Secyof   Admin.,613N.E.2d95,102(Mass.1993)(statingthat [a]valid `  userfeewillpasstheinternalconsistencytestbecausethefull  \  measureofthefeeisnotimposedformerelycrossingthetaxing   Statesborder,butisdirectlyrelatedinpurposeandamount,to d  theuseofaserviceorprivilege.) `   ` Wethinkthatthecasebeforeusismoreakinto   EvansvilleVanderburghAirportAuth.v.DeltaAirlines,Inc.,405 h U.S.707(1972),whichupheldthevalidityofaflatchargeof$1.00 d perpassengerenplaningonacommercialairlineroperatingfromthe  Evansvilleairport.TheCourtheldthatbecausebothinterstateand l intrastateflightsaresubjecttothesamecharge,thefeedidnot h discriminateagainstinterstatecommerce,eventhoughthevast  majorityofpassengersboardingaircrafttraveledininterstate p  commerce.Itstatedthat !l" 8 ` solongasthetollisbasedonsomefair "$ approximationofuseorprivilegeforuse,as #% wasthatbeforeusinCapitolGreyhound[Lines t$& v.Brice,339U.S.542(1950)],andisneither J% ' discriminatoryagainstinterstatecommercenor  &p!( excessiveincomparisonwiththegovernmental &F") benefitconferred,itwillpassconstitutional '#* muster,eventhoughsomeotherformulamight (#+ reflectmoreexactlytherelativeuseofthe x)$, statefacilitiesbyindividualusers.N*%-` `    $+t&. 4YId.at71617.InCapitolGreyhound,citedbytheCourt,ithad   upheldthevalidityofMarylandsexcisetaxof2%ofthevalueof \ avehicleimposedasaconditionprecedenttooperationofthe X vehicleintheStateofMaryland,inpartbecausethetax applie[d]   tointerstateandintrastatecommercewithoutdiscrimination.339 `  U.S.at544.  \   ` Here,thetollsareassesseduniformlyindirect   proportiontouseofthetollfacilitiesandhavenotbeenshownto d  beexcessive,eitherstandingaloneorbyreasonoftheunrestricted `  availabilityofthefrequenttravelerdiscount.    ` B.8 TheFLDPIsNotDiscriminatory h OnItsFaceOrInItsPractical > Effectd { {  ` Plaintiffsofferthreeargumentsinsupportoftheir  secondcontention.First,theysaythattheFLDP invariably l result[s]inasignificantdegreeofpermanentcostexportingonto h theinterstatetraveler,nonresidentand/ornonparticipant.    AppellantsBr.at29 . Aswehaveexplainedabove,interstate p  travelerspaythesametollsasresidenttravelers.Anytraveler 8!" canqualifyforadiscountbutthedecisionwhethertodosoturns "4$ principallyonanticipatedfrequencyoftravel.WhileaNewYork $& residentislikelytomakeinfrequenttripsthroughthetollplazas <&!( andtunnels,soistheresidentofa wealthysuburbofBostonwho '8#* prefersusingpublictransportationtodrivinghisorhercarinto )$, thecity.AppellantsBr.at32.Buttheincrementalburdenofthe @+&. undiscountedtollfortheinfrequenttravelerisbynecessityde  minimus.Plaintiffsinflammatoryassertionthat [e]achyear \ millionsofnonFASTLANEparticipantspayasignificanttoll X premium,atariffof20%or33%greaterthanparticipants(i.e.   Massachusettsresidents),forusingthesamestretchofroad, `  AppellantsBr.at14,provesnothing;itisexpectedthat  \  nonparticipantswillpayhighertollsbutitdoesnotfollowthat   interstatecommercewillbeburdened,muchlessthatitwillsuffer d  discrimination.Unlikeflattaxesimposedoninterstatetruck `  operators,thecollectionofundiscountedtollsfromtheoccasional   traveler"residentornonresident"resultsinnodiscernable cost h exporting. d  ` Second,theyarguethattheFLDPhasadiscriminatory  intentandpurpose.PlaintiffspointoutthattheFLDPwasadopted l inresponsetopoliticalpressuretobenefitcommuters,surelya h constitutionallyvalidpurpose.AppellantsBr.at31.Theygoon  toarguethatwhenMTAsoughttoquellconstitutionalconcernsby p  offeringdiscountedtollstononresidentswhoparticipateinthe !l" FLDP,itmerely soughttomaskthediscriminatoryimpactonnon "$ residentsbyofferingahollowoptionthatfewnonresidentswill t$& choose.AppellantsBr.at32.  &p!(  ` However,plaintiffsFirstAmendedComplaintcontainsno '#* allegationofdiscriminatorypurpose;onthecontrary,plaintiffs x)$, allegethat $+t&. 8 ` toheadoffconcernsthattheResidentOnly  FastLaneDiscountProgrammayviolatethe  interstateCommerceClause...defendants \ modifiedtheResidentOnlyDiscountProgramto 2 applytoalltravelers,residentsandnon X residents,equippedwithFASTLANE . transponders. ` `  FirstAm.Compl.at27 . Wethinkthatplaintiffsargumentfalls `  ofitsownweight.SeeGrantsDairyv.CommrofMe.Deptof ( x  Agric.,232F.3d8,23(1stCir.2000)(innocuousexpressionsof $  concerninsufficienttoraiseinferenceofprotectionistintent).    ` Finally,plaintiffscontendthattheFLDPis ,|  discriminatoryonitsface ( 8 ` becauseitregulatesthetollthatonepays  basedononesparticipationinthestate Z sponsoredFASTLANEelectronictollcollection 0 programtotheexclusionofallothercompeting V electronictollcollectionsystemslikeEZ , Passofferedbyotherstatesorthatdonot  participateinanyelectronictollcollection  system.^` `  AppellantsBr.at33.Thelogicunderlyingtheargumentis  Z elusive.ParticipationinFASTLANEdoesnotprecludeparticipation  inotherelectronictollcollectionsystems;nothingintherecord b ! indicatesthatautomobilescannotcarrymorethanonetransponder. "^# Moreover,itcanhardlybesaidthatFASTLANE,whichoperateson # % threeMassachusettstollcollectionpoints,competeswithsystems f% ' thatoperateontollcollectionpointsinNewYork,NewJerseyand 'b") Delaware.Participantsinsystemsinthosestatesarenot ($+  penalized,asplaintiffsargue,fortheirdecisiontochoosea j*%- differentsystem.AppellantsBr.at33.Theirparticipationin ,f'/ suchsystemshasnoimpactontheirrighttoparticipateinthe  FLDP. \  ` C.8 TheFLDPDoesNotShiftHighway X CostsToNonResidentsand . ServesALegitimateLocal   InterestUnrelatedToEconomic   Protectionism`  { {  ` Weaddressplaintiffsthirdandfourthcontentions  \  together.ArguingfromthepremisethattheFLDPredistributesthe   increasedtollburdenfromBostoncommuterstononresidentsand d  forcesnonresidents withlittleornoincentivetoparticipateto `  payadisproportionateshareofthestateshighwaycosts,   plaintiffscontendthattheFLDPservesnolegitimatelocalinterest h unrelatedtoeconomicprotectionism.AppellantsBr.at38.For d thereasonsdiscussedatlengthabove,thepremiseisflawed.There  isnothingtoshowthatonewhodrivesfromNewYorktoBostonand l paysthe$1.00tollpaysa disproportionateshareofthestates h highwaycostscomparedtothesuburbancommuterwho,drivingover  amuchshorterdistanceonthestateshighways,paysthediscounted p  tollof$.75.Thus,theprogramdoesnotimplicatethebalancing !l" testunderPikev.BruceChurch,397U.S.137(1970).See "$ AppellantsBr.at40. t$&  ` Evenifitdid,however,theplanpassesmuster.Under  &p!( thePikebalancingtest, [w]herethestatuteregulateseven '#* handedlytoeffectuatealegitimatelocalpublicinterest,andits x)$, effectsoninterstatecommerceareonlyincidental,itwillbe $+t&. upheldunlesstheburdenimposedonsuchcommerceisclearly  excessiveinrelationtotheputativelocalbenefits.Id.at142. \ Here,theeffectonnonresidentdrivers"justasonresidentdrivers X "isthattoqualifyforthediscounts,theymustinvest$27.50to   acquireatransponderandmaintainanaccountbalanceof$10$20. `  Thatburdenisdeminimisinrelationtothepublicbenefitsof  \  achievingamoreequitablesharingoftollburdensamongcommuters,   someofwhompaynotollsontheirroutes,andfacilitatingthe d  implementationofanessentialfundingschemeformajorhighway `  improvements.    ` Wehaveconsideredotherargumentsadvancedbyplaintiffs h andfoundthemtobewithoutmerit. d    @` CONCLUSION      ` WeconcludethattheFLDPtreatsMassachusettsbasedand  othervehicleswithanevenhandandthattheprogramdoesnot 4 interferewithcommercebetweenthestates.Accordingly,the 0 judgmentofthedistrictcourtis AFFIRMED .    ` AFFIRMED.