IRP, Inc. Dispute Resolution Committee Meeting Minutes November 14-15, 2003

Transcription

1 IRP, Inc. Dispute Resolution Committee Meeting Minutes November 14-15, 2003 Participants Jim Poe, Indiana Chair Steven Sebestyen, Massachusetts Vice Chair Ross Burns, Ontario Parliamentarian Ron Foord, Saskatchewan Garry Hinkley, Maine Lorraine Lardie, Alberta Ruth Skluzacek, Iowa Jay Starling, Alabama Jackie Beal, Comdata Russ Cerniglia, Ruan Transportation B.J. Henderson, International Trucking Consultants John Jabas, FFE Tom Klingman, UPS Rick Reeves, SIRVA Tim Adams, Kentucky IRP, Inc. Board of Directors Chair Paul Cooney, AAMVA/IRP, Inc. Legal Counsel Joelle Becker, IRP, Inc. Linda Mead, Savich Reporting Committee Membership Steven Sebestyen, Massachusetts, has been appointed to vice chair of the Dispute Resolution Committee. Russ Cerniglia, Ruan Transportation, has been appointed as an industry advisor to the Dispute Resolution Committee. 2002/2003 Dispute Resolution Committee Meeting Minutes Motion and second to approve the minutes from the following meetings: November 7 & 9, 2002 February 18, 2003 April 10, 2003 Motion passed. Consent Agenda Motion and second to accept the consent agenda. Motion passed. Actions taken on the following jurisdictions: Minnesota Peer Review In compliance. No further reporting required. Missouri Peer Review In compliance. No further reporting required. South Carolina Peer Review In compliance. No further reporting required. Tennessee Peer Review In compliance. No further reporting required. Utah Peer Review In compliance. No further reporting required. Virginia Peer Review In compliance. No further reporting required. Washington Peer Review In compliance. Submit status report of continue compliance in January 2004 and in August 2004 for review by Peer Review Committee.

2 PEER REVIEW FOLLOW-UP REPORTS (from November 7 & 9, 2002, DRC Meeting): District of Columbia Peer Review In November 2002 D.C. was required to submit a hunter s permit, a revised estimated distance chart, an explanation of internal processing procedures and proof of appropriateness use of applications by January 6, D.C. was also required to continue submitting monthly reports of their transmittal activity and conduce nine audits by June The Peer Review Committee reported that they received D.C. s revised hunter s permit on March 17, 2003, which was approved by the committee. The committee approved the revised D.C. estimated distance chart in February 2003 along with D.C. s internal processing procedures and proof of appropriate use of D.C. applications. The committee recommended that D.C. continue to be monitored on an annual basis until D.C. s next peer review. The committee also recommended that D.C. continue submitting transmittal reports until the 2004 DRC meeting. The committee reviewed the nine audits D.C. completed, with the assistance of Virginia auditors, and recommended that D.C. be found in compliance with its audit program. Jackie Stanley and Mary Parker, D.C., reported on D.C. s continued commitment to follow the IRP guidelines. Ruth Skluzacek reported on several months in 2003 where transmittals from D.C. were not received by Iowa. Motion and second that D.C. is in compliance with Sections 400 and 800 of the Plan, based on the recommendation of the Peer Review Committee. D.C. is directed to continue to be monitored annually, in a manner to be determined by the Peer Review Committee, of its use of the D.C. estimated distance chart beginning January 1, 2004, through January 1, Motion passed. Motion and second that because of additional information provided to the Dispute Resolution Committee at its November 2003 meeting, D.C. continues to be out of compliance with Section 408 of the Plan. D.C. is directed to continue submitting detailed transmittal information, in a manner to be determined by the Peer Review Committee, on a monthly basis. The Peer Review Committee shall report on D.C. s compliance to the Dispute Resolution Committee by May 15, Motion passed. Motion and second that D.C. is in compliance with its audit program. Motion passed. Oklahoma Peer Review In November 2002 the Dispute Resolution Committee tabled a decision on Sections 210 and 218 and directed Oklahoma to provide evidence to the Peer Review Committee of its compliance for Sections 800 and 906. Marjorie Welch, Oklahoma, provided a presentation of the work Oklahoma has completed to come into compliance with Sections 210, 218, 800 and 906.

3 The Peer Review Committee recommended that, based on the information submitted by Oklahoma, Oklahoma be found in compliance with Section 800 regarding justification by carriers of their use of estimated distance. The committee recommended to Oklahoma that the Oklahoma motor carrier manual be amended to acknowledge that registrants have the option of providing their own estimates on IRP applications. The committee recommended that Oklahoma be found in full compliance with Section 800. The committee recommended that Oklahoma be found out of compliance with Section 906 and be required to continue submitting new accounts for review by the committee on a quarterly basis. Based on a request by Oklahoma for more feedback from the Peer Review Committee on their efforts to come into compliance with the Plan, the committee assured Oklahoma that the committee is committed toward providing as much assistance as possible to help Oklahoma achieve full compliance with the Plan. Motion and second to accept the Peer Review Committee s recommendation to find Oklahoma in compliance with Section 800 of the Plan, in accordance with the information Oklahoma submitted to the Peer Review Committee. Motion passed. Motion and second that based on the information submitted to the Dispute Resolution Committee by the Peer Review Committee, Oklahoma continues to be out of compliance with Section 906 of the Plan. Oklahoma is directed to submit detailed IRP application information, in a manner to be determined by the Peer Review Committee, on a monthly basis for six months. The Peer Review Committee shall provide Oklahoma with a report of their review of the information each month and report on Oklahoma s compliance to the Dispute Resolution Committee by May 15, Motion passed. Motion and second that from the information that Oklahoma submitted to the Dispute Resolution Committee for Sections 210 and 218 of the Plan, Oklahoma has taken the appropriate administrative steps to achieve compliance. Oklahoma is directed to submit information, in a manner to be determined by the Peer Review Committee, on a monthly basis to confirm that Oklahoma is in compliance. The Peer Review Committee shall provide Oklahoma with a report of their review of the information each month and report on Oklahoma s compliance to the Dispute Resolution Committee by May 15, Motion passed. PEER REVIEW REPORTS Alberta Peer Review During Alberta s peer review follow-up in September 2003 Alberta was still out of compliance with Sections 1704 and 1706 regarding the netting of audits. The Peer Review Committee recommended that Alberta be found out of compliance with Sections 1704 and 1706 and to submit proof of full compliance by September Lorraine Lardie, Alberta, reported that Alberta is in compliance with audit netting as it relates to the U.S. jurisdictions but that system changes need to occur before Alberta was in compliance

4 with the Canadian jurisdictions. Alberta s target date for completing the systems requirements is March Motion and second to accept the Peer Review Committee s recommendation of finding Alberta out of compliance with Sections 1704 and 1706 of the Plan. Alberta is to submit proof of compliance with Sections 1704 and 1706 to the Peer Review Committee by September 1, Motion passed. Newfoundland and Labrador Peer Review During Newfoundland s peer review follow-up in September 2003 Newfoundland was still out of compliance with Section 300 to ensure continuous registration for those jurisdictions that require continuous registration. The Peer Review Committee recommended that Newfoundland be found out of compliance with Section 300 and submit proof of compliance by September Motion and second to accept the Peer Review Committee s recommendation of finding Newfoundland out of compliance with Section 300 of the Plan. Newfoundland and Labrador is to submit proof of compliance with Section 300 to the Peer Review Committee by September 1, Motion passed. CLASS IV INTERPRETATION REQUESTS Utah Class IV Interpretation Request Kevin Park, Utah, asked the committee: When a base jurisdiction pays a refund claim to a registrant for fees collected, what procedure is available to the base jurisdiction for recovering the amount of the refund from the Jurisdiction(s) that received the funds? What involvement should the second jurisdiction have in the decision to approve or deny the refund claim? The DRC determined that the questions were related to Section 300 rather than Section 700 as indicated in Utah s DRC summary form. Motion and second to dismiss the Utah interpretation request because the question asked by Utah was improperly submitted. Motion passed. Peer Review Committee Interpretation Request Gerald Jackson, on behalf of the Peer Review Committee, requested an interpretation from the DRC on the following questions: What process must jurisdictions use to determine estimated distances for renewals and added jurisdictions? Is it the peer Review Committee s responsibility to verify that jurisdictions reject unreasonable estimated distances on all applications, initial and renewal?

5 Motion and second that when determining second and subsequent year estimates, IRP jurisdictions must use estimated distances based on miles or kilometers that are reasonable and fair. Motion passed. Motion and second that it is the Peer Review Committee s responsibility to verify that jurisdictions reject unreasonable estimated distances on all applications, initial and renewal, in accordance with the Peer Review Compliance Guide as approved by the IRP, Inc. Board of Directors. Motion passed. British Columbia Interpretation Request Al Keith, British Columbia, requested an interpretation based on the large number of rental vehicles that have recently switched from allocating to apportioning. The following questions were submitted to the DRC: Does Intended for Use include any vehicle or fleet of vehicles that might eventually at some unknown point in the future travel into another jurisdiction? What does the Plan consider to be adequate records to substantiate the claim of interjurisdictional travel, and where does the onus of proof lie in determining if a vehicle actually operates in two or more jurisdictions? Pat Crahan, U-Haul, suggested to the DRC that the interpretation request should have been in the form of a Class I dispute. Motion and second that the first question submitted by British Columbia is answered by Governing Board decisions #12 and #29, which are hereby confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Committee. Motion passed with one opposed. Motion and second that the burden of proof lies with the registrant. The registrant must maintain adequate records in accordance with Article XV of the Plan. Motion passed. CLASS I DISPUTES Illinois/Oklahoma Class I Dispute In November 2002 the DRC directed all jurisdictions to withhold funds against Oklahoma beginning January 1, 2003, until Oklahoma presented an acceptable plan to the DRC to compensate Illinois for its monetary losses. The directive was contested by Oklahoma and in April 2003 the Oklahoma Federal District Court issued an order requiring all jurisdictions but Illinois to resume transmitting fees to Oklahoma. Nathan Maddox, Illinois, and Joe Hampton, Oklahoma, presented updates to the DRC on the status of an agreement to settle this issue. Motion and second to accept Illinois claim of $7,207,103, to be adjusted by the actual Illinois gross registered weight and the effective date of the vehicle registration for vehicles used in the claim. Motion passed.

6 Motion and second that Oklahoma must supply to Illinois the actual Illinois registered gross weight and date of registration of all vehicles in their database for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 registration years. This information must be supplied to Illinois by December 15, Motion passed. Motion and second that Illinois must use the data collected to adjust the monies owed Illinois. Motion passed. Motion and second that Illinois must submit the adjusted dollar amount to the Dispute Resolution Committee and Oklahoma no later than February 1, 2004, for final disposition of this matter. Motion passed. Mr. Maddox asked for the record if Oklahoma accepted the committee s decision. Mr. Hampton responded that he was not in the position to state whether Oklahoma did or did not waive its right under the Plan to seek judicial remedies, but that it was Oklahoma s intent to comply with the direction and the request for provisions of the information, to examine Illinois adjusting calculation once it is submitted, and at that point it would be appropriate to determine what of action to take. The Dispute Resolution Committee denied Oklahoma s request for a recusal of this dispute. Iowa et al (Joint Jurisdictions) v. Oklahoma On behalf of 13 jurisdictions, David Ferree, Iowa Assistant Attorney General, presented a summary of the Class 1 dispute filed against Oklahoma, claiming that Oklahoma s noncompliance with the Plan has resulted in the jurisdictions losing substantial registration fees. Motion and second to accept the claim by the joint jurisdictions of $20,346,970, less interest and less $448,519 identified for the California trailer fees, to be adjusted by the actual gross registered weight and the effective date of the vehicle registration for vehicles used in the claim for each of the joint jurisdictions. Motion passed. Motion and second that Oklahoma must supply to the joint jurisdictions the requested information for all vehicles in their database for the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 registration years. This information must be supplied to the joint jurisdictions by December 15, Motion passed. Motion and second that the joint jurisdictions must use the data collected to adjust the monies owed the joint jurisdictions. Motion passed. Motion and second that the joint jurisdictions must submit the adjusted dollar amount for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 registration years to the Dispute Resolution Committee and Oklahoma no later than February 1, 2004, for final disposition of this matter. Motion passed. Motion and second that the joint jurisdictions must submit their claims to the Dispute Resolution Committee and Oklahoma for 2002 and 2003 by April 1, The trailer claim must be submitted separately for all affected years. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned.