Oklahoma may face sanctions by the International Registration Plan if it can’t provide evidence of compliance by early November.
What has been a long-simmering dispute between Oklahoma and several other jurisdictions appears to have come to a head with recently released findings of a special peer review committee.
Under IRP rules, carriers register their vehicles in their home or base state and file quarterly mileage reports to that state. The state then apportions fees according to the carrier’s mileage in each jurisdiction. New carriers are allowed to estimate mileage the first year and, in most states, owner-operators can estimate mileage the first year they switch from a carrier registration to their own plates.
Many states have complained that Oklahoma’s lax procedures encourage out-of-state carriers to register in Oklahoma, using the address of a third party licensing agent, then pack the pack the first-year estimates with high mileage in low-fee states.
An IRP dispute resolution committee ruled in 1999 that carriers couldn’t use the address of a third-party service provider as their base address. Many of those services argued that IRP didn’t have authority to impose such a ban, and the practice clearly continues. The peer review, ordered by IRP’s board last May, found more than 1,600 registrants at one Oklahoma address. Two other addresses had more than 1,400 registrants each. Many other addresses had several hundred registrants.
The review team, made up of officials from Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee, also noted that a large number of owner-operators have used third-party services as their established place of business. They said they attempted to verify telephone numbers for several of the owner-operators, but directory assistance was unable to provide listings.
A review of accounts also identified “a pattern of unreasonable estimated distance,” the report said. There were high mileages for low-fee jurisdictions -- mainly Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas -- while other jurisdictions contained only one round-trip each. IRP staff said the estimates were feasible for carriers based in Oklahoma. “However,” the report said, “based upon the experience of other member jurisdictions, logic would indicate that there should also be proportionally high distances in other border jurisdictions.”
On Aug. 24, the IRP Board of Directors endorsed the findings of the peer review report and gave Oklahoma 60 days to come into compliance or provide evidence of compliance. IRP’s dispute resolution committee will review the state’s response on Nov. 1. It also voted to invoke sanctions, effective Nov. 5, if Oklahoma fails to provide evidence of compliance. Those sanctions could include the loss of voting and other privileges as well as suspension of fee payments to Oklahoma by all other member jurisdictions.
The board also advised one state, Illinois, to investigate the filing of a $15 million claim against Oklahoma for loss of revenue and it said it will brief the U.S. Department of Transportation on the issue and actions taken.
What has been a long-simmering dispute between Oklahoma and several other jurisdictions appears to have come to a head with recently released findings of a special peer review committee.
Under IRP rules, carriers register their vehicles in their home or base state and file quarterly mileage reports to that state. The state then apportions fees according to the carrier’s mileage in each jurisdiction. New carriers are allowed to estimate mileage the first year and, in most states, owner-operators can estimate mileage the first year they switch from a carrier registration to their own plates.
Many states have complained that Oklahoma’s lax procedures encourage out-of-state carriers to register in Oklahoma, using the address of a third party licensing agent, then pack the pack the first-year estimates with high mileage in low-fee states.
An IRP dispute resolution committee ruled in 1999 that carriers couldn’t use the address of a third-party service provider as their base address. Many of those services argued that IRP didn’t have authority to impose such a ban, and the practice clearly continues. The peer review, ordered by IRP’s board last May, found more than 1,600 registrants at one Oklahoma address. Two other addresses had more than 1,400 registrants each. Many other addresses had several hundred registrants.
The review team, made up of officials from Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee, also noted that a large number of owner-operators have used third-party services as their established place of business. They said they attempted to verify telephone numbers for several of the owner-operators, but directory assistance was unable to provide listings.
A review of accounts also identified “a pattern of unreasonable estimated distance,” the report said. There were high mileages for low-fee jurisdictions -- mainly Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas -- while other jurisdictions contained only one round-trip each. IRP staff said the estimates were feasible for carriers based in Oklahoma. “However,” the report said, “based upon the experience of other member jurisdictions, logic would indicate that there should also be proportionally high distances in other border jurisdictions.”
On Aug. 24, the IRP Board of Directors endorsed the findings of the peer review report and gave Oklahoma 60 days to come into compliance or provide evidence of compliance. IRP’s dispute resolution committee will review the state’s response on Nov. 1. It also voted to invoke sanctions, effective Nov. 5, if Oklahoma fails to provide evidence of compliance. Those sanctions could include the loss of voting and other privileges as well as suspension of fee payments to Oklahoma by all other member jurisdictions.
The board also advised one state, Illinois, to investigate the filing of a $15 million claim against Oklahoma for loss of revenue and it said it will brief the U.S. Department of Transportation on the issue and actions taken.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments