Minnesota stand remains as with the prior interest ballot proposal.  We question the legal authority of IFTA imposing an interest rate, interest rates are set by the governing body not the administrative body.  In addition the new language is complex and confusing.

If there were a "neutral" category when commenting on ballots - Nebraska's position would be neutral.  Although we agree there may be some minor changes in the interest rate from year to year - who cares.  Jurisdicictions will have to be able to handle interest rate changes in their IFTA systems whether that rate changes annually or every few years.  It is true that this ballot would likely result in less changes  -     

As a Canadian jurisdiction, Ontario is not subject to the same interest provisions. However, we have concerns whether the complexity of the language helps to simplify the requirement. We are not quite sure how this will be of benefit to the U.S. jurisdictions.