The following comments were submitted for proposed Ballot 2012.02: Distance Estimates. This ballot is now Ballot 379, currently open for voting.
See the Open Ballots page for more information.
||Fleetlegal Solutions, Inc.
||This is definitely needed to provide relief to the industry, especially in todays economy and to those carriers expanding their fleet operations. I LOOK FORWARD TO ITS DISCUSSION. |
The Plan does not require the applicant to strictly utilize the method of estimating distance as prescribed in Section 320. The applicant need only submit an acceptable written business plan as a basis for their own estimates versus distance chart.
It is not necessary to amend the Plan when the situation described in this proposed ballot can be resolved by using alternatives offered in the Plan.
In response to the comments from West Virginia, the Plan DOES require strict utilization of the method perscribed in Section 320 in many situations. One example that all jurisdictions routinely see is an owner operator who works for a carrier who requires the owner operator to have all jurisdictions on his cab card. The owner operator doesn't know precisely where his carrier will send him during the registration year. He does not usually have a well documented business plan, and must consequently use the method prescribed in Section 320.
The alternatives offered in the Plan work well for the registrant who has a specific contract that can document their expanded operations. But those alternatives also require a manual intervention (requiring more staff time) and do not work well for most expanded operations. To fit those square pegs into the round hole of a schedule G potentially requires a "wink-and-a-nod" on the part of the jurisdiction.
||Undecided. Although IRP's rules in this area are definitely unfair to many motor carriers, it is questionable whether this is the way to improve them. The rationale for choosing "low-distance" accounts to receive relief is not clear, as this category includes a vast variety of both large and small fleets engaged in all sorts of operation. Nor is it clear from the wording of the proposal that a jurisdiction that chooses to adjust fees for low-distance accounts must adjust them for all such accounts, or may select only the "most deserving." |
The following is provided in response to comments from the ATA.
"Low distance" registrants were chosen because Oklahoma believes that is where the most harm is occurring under the Plan Rewrite.
It is agreed the current ballot language does not require jurisdictions that choose to make adjustments, make the adjustments for all accounts that meet the criteria. It was assumed that jurisdictions would consistently apply the provisions to all registrants based in their jurisdictions. If this is an area that jurisdictions believe is necessary, Oklahoma would gladly consider adding clarifying language.
||Utah is concerned with the use of the word " may" and what this might do for uniformity of Utah's fee calculations. We are also undecided as to the need for this ballot. |
||A refund with intrest should be returned to the person on the difference between actual and estimated. Or pay the difference if its more. No where in business do you not get a audit to differientate between estimated and actual numbers. |