Print Page

as of April 16, 2018:

$1 USD = $1.2580 CAD
$1 CAD = $0.7949 USD

Comments on Proposed Ballot: 2018.02 Registrant from Non-Member Jurisdiction

The following comments were submitted for the proposed ballot - 20187.02 Registrant from Non-Member Jurisdiction.

 Date  Name



5/15/18 Jay Sween Wisconsin Oppose as written. Support the concept of allowing a registrant from a non-member jurisdiction to register in a member jurisdiction where ANY distance is accrued in the first and each subsequent year. However, for Wisconsin to support fully, the “reject for cause” language would need to remain and 310(c) sunset date would need to be removed. If you left all of the original language and simply focused on the change from "expects to OPERATE THE GREATEST distance" to "expects to ACCRUE ANY distance" you would have a much better chance of victory in my opinion. One additional note: there would be greater chameleon carrier potential with non-member jurisdiction registrants if allowed to open up shop in any jurisdiction where mileage is accrued. This is a concern but one we should address with a better program to catch chameleon carriers.  
 3/8/18 James Starling Alabama Unsure.  I would like to discuss the intent of this ballot and its implications at the annual meeting.
 3/16/18 Lynne Jones Oklahoma Section 310 has worked quite well for non-member Canadian jurisdiction’s (and Alaska) for a long time. While this ballot's provisions might be palatable if the sunset provision wasn't included, we cannot support this ballot as written.
 4/4/18 Bob Pitcher American Trucking Association OPPOSE. ATA has supported freer entry and operation for Mexican carriers into the United States for many years. This proposed amendment would make that more difficult. There is also the possibility that the adoption of this amendment by IRP would involve the Plan in international politics. 
4/12/18 Dawn Lietz Nevada Opposed as written. Nevada believes the intent of the plan is to allow opportunity for carriers domiciled in non-member jurisdictions (regardless of the reason the jurisdiction is not a member) to have the ability to simplify reporting and participate in the reciprocity provided for by the plan. Placing a sunset on section 310 removes that opportunity. Secondly, Nevada opposes the language allowing a member jurisdiction to accept or deny a registration without some guidance in the Plan on what is or is not acceptable grounds for such determination. At a minimum, the plan should require a jurisdiction to have a written procedure that applies equally to all applicants based on the laws or procedures of that jurisdiction.
Sign In