Not sure this adds value to the definition. SK has always assumed that a vehicle described as a motor vehicle is self propelled.  A trailer is simply a vehicle,  not a motor vehicle.

We are not sure why this change is needed and feel that it will be more confusing and lead to further ballot clarifications.

As indicated by others, BC is not sure if this ballot is necessary.

The wording is not clear. We suggest to use the term "Power Unit" as used by IRP.

We ask the same question as Nebraska - has IFTA ever considered exempting government vehicles? 

The AC supports the intent of this ballot but is concerned that the insertion of “self-propelled” is in the wrong location.  Since a “combination vehicle” is already covered in .300, the AC believes the insertion of “self-propelled” only relates to section .200 and should read, “A self-propelled vehicle having three or more axles regardless of weight; or”

Kansas supports, our enforcement personnel experience with FMCSA regulations over the years has shown us that having an interpretation on definitions helps. So, for that reason, we see a benefit for enforcement to have a clarification of what a Qualified Motor Vehicle is. Kansas already enforces the rules the way the interpretation is worded so there will be no change in our enforcement practices

Nebraska doesn't quite understand the need for this ballot.  IF there is  a lot of confusion regarding what is or isn't a qualified vehicle and a clarification is really necessary, we would suggest adding the term " is a power unit "   - so that the definition more closely resembles the IRP definition.  

While we're at it - has IFTA ever considered exempting government vehicles?