Full Reciprocity Plan
IRP Board Meeting
February 2-4, 2010
San Antonio, Texas
What is it?
• The Full Reciprocity Plan, or FRP, is a
concept to change the International
Registration Plan to make the Plan
more efficient for its member
jurisdictions and more flexible and more
equitable for many Plan registrants.
What would the FRP do?
• The FRP would eliminate the concept of
estimated distance from the Plan.
• The FRP would automatically grant full
registration reciprocity in all member
jurisdictions to all IRP registrants.
• The FRP would retain the rest of the
Plan intact.
Why Now?
• Concept often raised during the Plan
rewrite.
• Rewrite emphasized problems with
estimates.
• Rewrite raised fees for second-year
estimates.
• Begin discussions on FRP feasibility
since process may take several years .
History of the FRP
• Similar concepts referred to as the
“Dallas Plan” have been proposed.
• Concepts urged elimination of estimated
distance and granted registration
privileges in all member jurisdictions.
• The FRP should be judged on its own
merits and not by past proposals.
History of the FRP
• FRP concept was presented at the 2008 IRP
Manager’s Workshop.
• FRP concept was presented at the 2008 IRP
annual meeting.
• IRP Board of Directors created the FRP
working group at the Fall 2008 board meeting
to review the concept.
• FRP concept was presented at the 2009 audit
workshop.
• FRP was presented at the 2009 annual
meeting as a breakout session.
Why Create a Working Group?
Strategic Plan Objective D:
IRP, Inc. will be the authoritative voice for
advancing the effective and efficient
regulation of commercial motor vehicles. We
will achieve this by:
1. Positioning IRP as the model of effective and
efficient regulation and cooperation. This will
include developing proposals to improve the
Plan and reduce the burden on jurisdictions
and industry.
FRP Working Group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jay Starling (AL)
Cathy Beedle (NE)
Kristen Palmer (AZ)
Matthew Poirier (MA)
Rob Termuende (BC)
Kim Wekenborg (MO)
Scott Greenawalt (OK)
Donna Burch (Ryder)
John Jabas (Transcore)
Bob Pitcher (ATA)
Tim Adams (IRP)
FRP Working Group Mission
• To investigate and recommend ways to
collect and distribute fees specifically
related to estimated distance.
• To simplify and reduce the burden of
administering the International
Registration Plan on both carriers and
jurisdictions.
FRP Working Group Activities
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meet via conference call (monthly).
Conduct Feasibility analysis.
DISCUSSION
Decision on feasibility.
Continued development of concept.
Breakout session at 2010 annual
meeting.
• Present ballot at 2011 annual meeting.
How the FRP would work (1)
• 1st year registrant:
– Would pay an “average” fee to all member
jurisdictions.
– Would receive registration privileges in all
member jurisdictions.
– No registrant estimates.
– No “true-up”.
How the FRP would work (2)
• Renewing registrant:
– Would pay apportioned fee on the basis of
fleet travel in the reporting period, only to
jurisdictions in which there was travel.
– Would receive registration privileges in all
member jurisdictions.
Advantages
• Eliminates estimates from the Plan.
• Reduces Plan complexity.
• Allows smaller registrants greater
operational flexibility.
• Fewer trip permits to issue.
• Tightens Plan enforcement.
• Reduces base jurisdiction shopping.
Advantages (cont.)
• Eliminates expanded operation
supplements.
• Resolves audit issues.
• Reduces need for multiple fleets.
• Reduces non-compliance issues.
• Reduces evasion.
• Eliminates estimates from the Plan.
Potential Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Programming costs
Need for improved audit programs
Enforcement issues
High 1st-year fees
Legal & constitutional prohibitions
Loss of trip permit revenue
Loss of revenue from 2nd-year
estimates
• Increased insurance costs
• Out of business carriers (true up)
Questions?
• What issues have you experienced with
estimated distance?
• How would this help member
jurisdictions?
• How would this help registrants?
• What kind of transition would be
necessary to implement the FRP?
• Should there be reconciliation or “true
up” after the first year of registration?
Questions?
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is the cost to implement?
How would 1st year fees be calculated?
Will 1st year fees be fair?
How would this affect auditing?
Would this conflict with state statues?
What affect would this have on
registration fee evasion?
• How would this affect law enforcement?
Questions?
• What additional information will your
jurisdiction need about the FRP?
• What happens to a dropped (no
operation intended) jurisdiction?
• Would there be a need for trip permits?
• What would the cab card look like?
• How would registration in all
jurisdictions affect insurance costs?
Homework
• FRP presentation and breakout
materials will be available on the
website.
• You are encouraged to share this
information with your managers and
staff.
• Please contact me with any questions
or comments regarding FRP.
• Your input is invaluable!
Comments/Questions
Jay Starling
Alabama Department of Revenue
Motor Vehicle Division
[email protected]
(334) 242-9078