|
|
Proposed Ballot 2007-13 Comments
| Jurisdiction/Company |
Position |
Comments |
| Comdata Corp. |
Undecided |
Why not change to weight method since the original people who drafted the axle method are now gone? Perfect time to draft the weight method. |
| Alabama |
Opposed |
Oppose as written. Proposed language should be included in Plan section 610 and/or 1215. |
| ATA |
Opposed |
This ballot is not well drafted. It is difficult to see an enforceable solution for this situation, which already appears to be covered by existing language in Section 610. Opposed. |
| Oregon |
Opposed |
2007.13 deals with registration based on numbers of axles (specific to Quebec today), Quebec is requesting a variance to the plan to provide for a registration system based on the number of axles of the vehicles within a fleet. Even though we do this today based on Quebec's requirements, it represents an exception much like the trailer exception that California used to employ. I do not support ballot 2007.13 because it codifies Quebec's exception and under plans such as the IRP we should be working to eliminate exceptions. Do not support. |
| Total supporting: |
0 |
|
| Total opposed: |
3 |
|
| Total undecided: |
1 |
|
|
|