ARLINGTON, Va. The U.S. states and Canadian provinces that are members of the International Registration Plan are voting this month on a measure that would eliminate the plan exemption granted to charter bus operators and force most of them to buy apportioned license plates.

"This is huge," said Victor Parra, president and CEO of the United Motorcoach Association and an industry member of the advisory panel of the IRP board of directors.

"This change will not only restrict travel and hurt tourism, but it will no doubt cost operators more to purchase their tags," said Parra.

Currently, only recreational vehicles, vehicles displaying restricted plates, city pick-up and delivery vehicles, buses used in transportation of chartered parties, and government-owned vehicles are exempt from the IRP definition of "apportionable" vehicles.

All commercial trucks and line-run buses weighing more than 26,000 pounds and operating interstate are required to have apportioned registration. Charter buses may be proportionally registered at the option of the operator.

Currently, fewer than 30 percent of the states and provinces require charter operators to purchase apportioned tags.

Parra and Lisa Simon, president of NTA (formerly the National Tour Association), have appealed to NTA members to send a letter to all state tourism directors, asking them to contact the IRP voting member in their state and urge him or her to vote against the ballot measure.

In their appeal, Parra and Simon say if the IRP ballot measure is approved it "will reduce travel to your state. . . . The proposal reduces the ability of groups traveling by charter bus to move between states, as well as move between states and Canadian provinces.

"Currently, under the IRP plan, charter buses are exempt from displaying apportioned license plates and are able to travel relatively freely between the two countries and among states and provinces. Thus, onboard tour guides can alter plans and easily travel among the states and provinces without any consequence.

"However, with apportioned plates, the bus company must know in advance where its heading and must have declared that state or province on their cab card, a document that lists all the states/provinces a charter operator plans to visit during the coming year," say Parra and Simon.

"Unfortunately, the nature of the charter and tour business is such that predicting those trips one year in advance is virtually impossible. It denies the demand-responsive nature of our business. If a charter bus enters a state or province that is not listed on the cab card, he/she runs the risk of having the bus impounded without any concern for the passengers on board!" Parra and Simon warn.

"This is a bad idea -- plain and simple!" they add.

The ballot measure submitted to the 59 states and provinces that are members of IRP views the issue differently.

"Charter buses utilize the same roads and bridges as trucks, truck-tractors and non-chartered motor buses," states the summary of the official IRP amendment that is being voted on by the states and provinces.

"Charter buses engaged are subject to (the same) regulatory requirements as trucks, truck-tractors and other motor buses, including USDOT, International Fuel Tax Agreement, and Unified Carrier Registration requirements.

"In its study of the (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Performance and Registration Information Systems Management) program, the (Government Accountability Office) attempted to determine the reason for this exemption by contacting representatives from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, UMA and FMCSA.

"The representatives said the reason for the exemption is that charter buses are for-hire operations and may not be able to reliably predict where they may operate. The representatives, however, were not able to provide a rationale why this exemption does not apply to for-hire trucking companies that may not be able to predict where they may operate.

"A survey of IRP members (58 out of 59 responded to the survey) reflects that less than 30 percent of jurisdictions required charter buses to be IRP registered. The jurisdictions that did not require charter buses to be IRP registered reported that due to the IRP registration exemption for charter buses, their jurisdiction recognized the full registration of charter buses through jurisdiction bi-lateral or multi-lateral free reciprocity agreements, jurisdictional statutes or administrative rules," the summary stated.

That same survey found that "nearly 75 percent of jurisdictions reported that interjurisdictional charter bus operations should be treated the same as any other motor vehicle engaged in interjursidictional commerce."

That finding could indicate it will be difficult to stop the ballot measure from being approved by state and provincial officials who may relish the idea of raking in additional vehicle registration dollars.

"The removal of the charter bus exemption from the plan would insure that charter bus operations would be ineligible for free reciprocity under separate reciprocity agreements and therefore would pay license fees, either by way of a permit or prorate, to each jurisdiction in which the charter bus operated or intended to operate," states the ballot summary.

"An additional benefit of removing the charter bus exemption from the plan" is that IRP registration would subject most interjurisdictional charter bus operations to the FMCSA PRISM program, which prevents or suspends the IRP registration of unsafe carriers, the summary adds.

The 59 states and provinces have until June 30 to cast their vote. If the measure is approved, it becomes effective Jan. 1.

For the uninitiated, the IRP is a registration reciprocity agreement among the 48 continental states, the District of Columbia and provinces of Canada, providing for payment of license fees on the basis of fleet distance operated in various jurisdictions.