Opinion ID: 2447883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Claimed Conflict with the IRP

Text: Although the Associations concede that nothing about the subsection (j)(2) apportioned-registration option violates the dormant Commerce Clause, they contend that it is not a valid option because it conflicts with the IRP and with the District of Columbia law (specifically, D.C.Code § 50-1507.02(b), which establishes that [t]he IRP . . . shall take precedence over any District of Columbia law or regulation that may be in conflict with these agreements). [37] The gist of the Associations' argument is that section 50-1501.02(j) and the IRP conflict because the former effectively makes apportioned registration mandatory for non-District based charter buses, while the latter affords charter buses the option to choose apportioned registration. See IRP art. II (excluding a bus used in the transportation of chartered parties from the definition of Apportionable Vehicle, but stating that any such bus nevertheless may be registered under the Plan at the option of the Registrant); see also IRP art. II, official cmt. ([V]ehicles not otherwise within the definition of Apportionable Vehicle may be apportioned if the registrant so chooses). We are not persuaded by this argument. To begin with, the fact that charter operators must choose one of the fee options described in section 50-1501.02(j)and the possibility that an operator may select the (j)(2) apportioned-registration option because it is the least burdensome among options that all are unattractivedoes not render the (j)(2) option mandatory, and does not mean that the choice of apportioned registration is not really a choice or option. Cf. Vazquez v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 296 Fed.Appx. 20, 24 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ([T]he fact that an employee is faced with an unpleasant situation or that his choice is limited to two unattractive options does not make the employee's decision any less voluntary). In addition, we do not think the IRP can fairly be interpreted to prohibit an IRP member jurisdiction from requiring vehicles that do not otherwise fit within the definition of apportionable vehicle from choosing between apportioned registration and some other form(s) of registration and fee payment. Quite the contrary, the Official Commentary of the definition of apportionable vehicle appears to acknowledge that jurisdictions may require such choices, stating that [v]ehicles not apportioned are subject to registration and fee payment in accordance with each Base Jurisdiction's general registration statutes. IRP art. II, official cmt. Further, where the IRP prohibits member jurisdictions from implementing particular registration requirements, it so states in plain language. See, e.g., IRP art. V, § 515 (No Member Jurisdiction shall require a Registrant of Power Units to register a number of Trailers, Semi-Trailers, or Auxiliary axles in any proportion to the Registrant's apportioned Fleet of Power Units). The IRP contains no language that plainly prohibits a member jurisdiction from offering charter buses the option of apportioned registration as one way of satisfying the jurisdiction's mandatory program of vehicle registration or fees.