1. Full Reciprocity Plan IRP Board Meeting February 2-4, 2010 San Antonio, Texas

2. What is it? The Full Reciprocity Plan, or FRP, is a concept to change the International Registration Plan to make the Plan more efficient for its member jurisdictions and more flexible and more equitable for many Plan registrants.

3. What would the FRP do? The FRP would eliminate the concept of estimated distance from the Plan. The FRP would automatically grant full registration reciprocity in all member jurisdictions to all IRP registrants. The FRP would retain the rest of the Plan intact.

4. Why Now? Concept often raised during the Plan rewrite. Rewrite emphasized problems with estimates. Rewrite raised fees for second-year estimates. Begin discussions on FRP feasibility since process may take several years.

5. History of the FRP Similar concepts referred to as the “Dallas Plan” have been proposed. Concepts urged elimination of estimated distance and granted registration privileges in all member jurisdictions. The FRP should be judged on its own merits and not by past proposals.

6. History of the FRP FRP concept was presented at the 2008 IRP Manager’s Workshop. FRP concept was presented at the 2008 IRP annual meeting. IRP Board of Directors created the FRP working group at the Fall 2008 board meeting to review the concept. FRP concept was presented at the 2009 audit workshop. FRP was presented at the 2009 annual meeting as a breakout session.

7. Why Create a Working Group? IRP, Inc. will be the authoritative voice for advancing the effective and efficient regulation of commercial motor vehicles. We will achieve this by: 1. Positioning IRP as the model of effective and efficient regulation and cooperation. This will include developing proposals to improve the Plan and reduce the burden on jurisdictions and industry. Strategic Plan Objective D:

8. FRP Working Group Jay Starling (AL) Cathy Beedle (NE) Kristen Palmer (AZ) Matthew Poirier (MA) Rob Termuende (BC) Kim Wekenborg (MO) Scott Greenawalt (OK) Donna Burch (Ryder) John Jabas (Transcore) Bob Pitcher (ATA) Tim Adams (IRP)

9. FRP Working Group Mission To investigate and recommend ways to collect and distribute fees specifically related to estimated distance. To simplify and reduce the burden of administering the International Registration Plan on both carriers and jurisdictions.

10. FRP Working Group Activities Meet via conference call (monthly). Conduct Feasibility analysis. DISCUSSION Decision on feasibility. Continued development of concept. Breakout session at 2010 annual meeting. Present ballot at 2011 annual meeting.

11. How the FRP would work (1) 1 st year registrant: –Would pay an “average” fee to all member jurisdictions. –Would receive registration privileges in all member jurisdictions. –No registrant estimates. –No “true-up”.

12. How the FRP would work (2) Renewing registrant: –Would pay apportioned fee on the basis of fleet travel in the reporting period, only to jurisdictions in which there was travel. –Would receive registration privileges in all member jurisdictions.

13. Advantages Eliminates estimates from the Plan. Reduces Plan complexity. Allows smaller registrants greater operational flexibility. Fewer trip permits to issue. Tightens Plan enforcement. Reduces base jurisdiction shopping.

14. Advantages (cont.) Eliminates expanded operation supplements. Resolves audit issues. Reduces need for multiple fleets. Reduces non-compliance issues. Reduces evasion. Eliminates estimates from the Plan.

15. Potential Concerns Programming costs Need for improved audit programs Enforcement issues High 1 st -year fees Legal & constitutional prohibitions Loss of trip permit revenue Loss of revenue from 2 nd- year estimates Increased insurance costs Out of business carriers (true up)

16. Questions? What issues have you experienced with estimated distance? How would this help member jurisdictions? How would this help registrants? What kind of transition would be necessary to implement the FRP? Should there be reconciliation or “true up” after the first year of registration?

17. Questions? What is the cost to implement? How would 1 st year fees be calculated? Will 1 st year fees be fair? How would this affect auditing? Would this conflict with state statues? What affect would this have on registration fee evasion? How would this affect law enforcement?

18. Questions? What additional information will your jurisdiction need about the FRP? What happens to a dropped (no operation intended) jurisdiction? Would there be a need for trip permits? What would the cab card look like? How would registration in all jurisdictions affect insurance costs?

19. Homework FRP presentation and breakout materials will be available on the website. You are encouraged to share this information with your managers and staff. Please contact me with any questions or comments regarding FRP. Your input is invaluable!

20. Comments/Questions Jay Starling Alabama Department of Revenue Motor Vehicle Division jay.starling@revenue.alabama.gov (334) 242-9078