IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Ballot #3 2023

Support: 31
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #1 - 2023

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut supported this ballot when it was previously presented and continues to do so.
DELAWARE	Support
IDAHO	Support	Idaho supports aligning with IRP requirements and audit consistency for joint shops and licensees.
ILLINOIS	Undecided	The inconsistencies within this ballot and the incomplete first sentence of .200 makes this ballot difficult to understand. However, if revisions properly addressed those issues, it would be easier to support. Static images – conflicting language: the “Intent” section of the ballot says: “The individual jurisdiction has the discretion to accept static images but is not required to.” But the proposed new language of 540.200 says: “Formats from a vehicle tracking system that provides a static image such as PDF, JPEG, PNG, 42 or Word are not acceptable.” Sentence structure/Section structure: Current Section 540 is hard to parse; the proposed revisions do not help. It appears that there are 2 ways to meet the distance records requirement: 540.100 or 540.200. If that’s the case, then 540 should start with a lead-in sentence that essentially says that. Then, the lead in for 540.100 and 540.200 should be a full sentence that lays out the requirements for that subsection. Something like: P540 DISTANCE RECORDS Distance records produced as provided under either 540.100 or by means of a vehicle-tracking system as provided under 540.200 that substantially document the fleet’s operations and contain the elements set out in 540.100 or 540.200, respectively, shall be accepted by the base jurisdiction as adequate under this article. .100* Distance records produced by a means other than a vehicle-tracking system that substantially document the fleet’s operations and contain the following elements shall be accepted by the base jurisdiction as adequate under this article: .005 . . . . .200 Distance records produced by a vehicle tracking system that substantially document the fleet’s operation and contain the following elements accessible in an electronic spreadsheet format such as XLS, SLSX, XSV or delimited text file shall be accepted by the base jurisdiction as adequate under this article: .005 . . . . If there *aren’t* 2 ways to meet the distance records requirements, then that should be made clear also. Dead zones and technical issues can cause temporary system reading failures which is why the elements such as route of vehicle’s travel and summary data should consistently be required for all distance records. Suggestion would be to add back the elements that were crossed out: . .030 the route of the vehicle’s travel .035 the total distance traveled by the vehicle . .040 the distance traveled in each jurisdiction .045 the vehicle identification number or vehicle unit number
INDIANA	Support	The ballot provides uniformity for carriers by clearly defining the data elements and formats required. The ballot closely conforms with current IRP data elements.
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina has three primary concerns with this ballot. First, North Carolina has a grammatical concern for the parenthetical phrase under P540.100. It currently reads as follows (bracketed language added to assist in explaining how the sentence is functioning): "Distance records produced by a means other than a vehicle-tracking system, [which you can find] in P540.200. . . ." However, the inverse is true: P540.200 is where the vehicle-tracking system requirements are found. Therefore, the parenthetical phrase should be removed. In the alternative, Illinois' proposed changes would resolve this issue. Second, GPS coordinates can be noted by either by DD (decimal degrees) or DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds). It appears the ballot is referring to DD. Therefore, the following changes may make it more clear: ".010 the latitude and longitude in decimal degrees with a minimum of 4 decimal places (e.g., 0.0001) of for each system reading" Third, North Carolina has concerns regarding the ballot's language prohibiting "static image[s] such as PDF, JPEG, PNG, or Word . . . " The sponsor of the ballot has stated that a jurisdiction can accept these records, however, this is not clear based on the Procedures Manual. North Carolina assumes that the sponsor is allowing this through P530, which provides that: "records may be produced through any means, and retained in any format or medium available to the licensee and accessible by the base jurisdiction. If records are presented in a format or in a manner in which the base jurisdiction cannot audit them, they have not been made available as required." However, this is not a mechanism for a member jurisdiction to accept static images. The above language from P530 and the new ballot's language under P540.200 conflict. There is a legal maxim that governs conflicts like this, specifically: generalia specialibus non derogant. This maxim provides that if two laws govern the same factual situation, the law governing the specific subject matter overrides the law governing the general subject matter. Applied here, the specific prohibition against static images would prevail over P530. Therefore, North Carolina recommends the following change to the ballot: "This data must be accessible in an electronic spreadsheet format such as XLS, XLSX, CSV or delimited text file. Formats from a vehicle tracking system that provides a static image such as PDF, JPEG, PNG, or Word are acceptable in the sole discretion of the member jurisdiction."
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	The last sentence of the proposed language is in conflict with the statement in the ballot intent. The intent statement says jurisdictions may accept static formats (the individual jurisdiction has the discretion to accept static images but is not required to), but the ballot says static formats are unacceptable. (Formats from a vehicle tracking system that provides a static image such as PDF, JPEG, PNG, 42 or Word are not acceptable). Oklahoma would be supportive if the language conflict is reconciled.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support	We support this ballot because a jurisdiction still has the discretion to accept the GPS data provided by the carrier if it believes it has the necessary information. It is not limited to the requirement set out in section P540.
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	For uniformity, this ballot between the IFTA and IRP audit committees gives jurisdictions and carriers written standards for electronic records. These are just minimums and jurisdictions can still use their discretion in adequate records.
Stakeholders	Support	Industry Advisory Committee Chuck Ledig, Chair Support Comment: The position of the IFTA Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) is such that we support the Ballot, however, suggest that a minor change to verbiage be considered. The language employed to qualify data reporting frequency should be something to the effect of, ““While the vehicle is in motion, the elapsed time between GPS positions be no greater than 10 minutes”, as the current language can be misinterpreted as 10 minutes or greater.
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 29
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2023

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
DELAWARE	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support	The ballot requires us to maintain and transmit records reviews as required for audits.
IOWA	Undecided	Iowa generally supports this concept but the ballot should require IFTA to develop a standard report for Records Reviews to ensure consistency, compliance and usefulness of the data.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Nebraska supports this ballot and the desire for transparancy. We questioned how to select which jurisdictions you would send the report to since there are no "results" in a records review and therefore no impacted jurisdictions to notify.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	Oklahoma believes this ballot will hold all jurisidctions accountable to each other for their uniform conduct. That is a laudable goal.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	South Dakota as one of the jurisdictions to bring the original records review ballot supports this ballot. We feel the method will need to be defined as how to upload and want the record review to be treated in line with the audits. This will allow other jurisdictions to see what records reviews are being completed and provides information to other jurisdictions in a spirit of openness and cooperation.
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	The intent is to include all records reviews beginning January 1, 2023, and has an effective date of January 1, 2024. Clarity is needed to detail the timeline required to submit 2023 record reviews to other jurisdictions, when for standard audits A460 requires it to be provided (uploaded to the clearinghouse) at the same time as it is provided to a licensee. Additionally, information regarding the required file naming and upload parameters will need to be provided by the clearinghouse prior to the effective date of this ballot. Finally, since the current process for the jurisdictional notice requirement includes selecting the affected jurisdictions at the time the report is uploaded, it is unclear if simply uploading the record review without selecting audited jurisdictions will satisfy notification as records reviews do not require comparing tax return records or any resulting tax assessment, and thus do not indicate affected jurisdictions on its face.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 27
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 4

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #3 - 2023

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support	Alberta supports this ballot as it will allow jurisdictions the flexibility to tax alternative fuels on a distance basis while maintaining the benefits of IFTA administration for carriers. Given the changes occurring with how vehicles are powered it will be important for jurisdictions to have that flexibility.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support	“California supports this ballot as we think it is important step in allowing jurisdictions the flexibility to tax alternative fuels and implement different tax collection schemes. However, we are concerned that the ballot as written may exceed the Congressional grant of authority to the States under ISTEA, which could open up IFTA to legal challenges. We support changing the ballot language to address these concerns.”
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut supports this ballot. With the passing of Ballot 8-2022 adding alternative fuels as a fuel type last year, IFTA needs to take the next step by being flexible in allowing a jurisdiction to collect the motor fuels use tax based on distance. The purpose of the agreement is to promote and encourage efficient administration of motor fuels use tax for both jurisdictions and carriers registered for IFTA and this ballot continues that premise.
DELAWARE	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support	This ballot provides the IFTA community the flexibility to collect fuel taxes based on distance when data for the traditional reporting is not available.
IOWA	Support	Iowa's IT systems can support this change for IFTA.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support	Michigan supports this ballot. This ballot allows flexibility to all IFTA jurisdictions who want to implement a distance tax, but more importantly it gives EV carriers a mechanism to report and remit distance tax to those jurisdictions who have or are considering legislation to tax EVs that are registered under IFTA.
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Oppose	Nebraska is opposed to this ballot in its current form. We agree with the concerns being raised by other jurisdictions, notably the issues raised by Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan and including the possible conflict with ISTEA and Congress’ grant of authority to the States raised by both California and Oklahoma. In addition to these issues, we would offer the following comments: The ballot as written provides an option for IFTA reporting for jurisdictions that have elected to tax “alternative fuels” on distance rather than consumption. The history and digest section implies that this ballot is intended, at least for now, for vehicles that operate on electricity. What would happen, if a jurisdiction would choose to begin taxing other alternative fuels (E85 or ethanol for example) on distance rather than consumption. Would this ballot open the door to distance tax collection on “alternative fuels” that are currently taxed on consumption to distance tax besides electricity? It is not clear in the ballot language how this would impact the tax return. If a carrier needs to report distance for an electric vehicle that operates in both a consumption-based jurisdiction (PA) and distance tax jurisdictions (IN) would you need two separate tax returns? This issue would be even more convoluted if jurisdictions would begin to utilize a distance tax on more than just electric vehicles. The intent section of the ballot states that this is a short-term solution. What exactly does that mean? Nebraska does understand that the ballot was drafted in response to Indiana’s law change but feels that a ballot with the potential for such a significant change to the agreement should be fully vetted and all opinions allowed to be heard. We concur with Saskatchewan that the work of the Alternative Fuel Committee has not been completed. Some IFTA ballots can be proposed, discussed, and voted on in a few months but this ballot is not one of them. This will have significant impact for the long term, not the short term and sufficient time should be allowed for a full and complete analysis before jurisdictions should be asked to vote.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Undecided	Newfoundland and Labrador echos the concerns of Saskatchewan and would recommend that further work be conducted to standardize the reporting methodology and the format of returns prior to approving this ballot and investing in system updates.
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolina shares the concerns raised by Oklahoma, California, and the AAC regarding whether the ballot exceeds the authority granted to States by Congress through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Although, North Carolina generally agrees with the analysis provided in the AAC comments, North Carolina is uncertain whether a VMT can serve as an indirect proxy for fuel consumption. North Carolina is also concerned regarding other aspects of the ballot. First, the proposed changes to P550 are unclear. The language makes a direct relationship between record keeping requirements and a schedule on a return. These are distinct concepts, and North Carolina is concerned about the potential of relieving the duty to maintain records for alternative fuel bulk withdrawals. If the licensee operates in member jurisdictions that tax the same product differently (consumption versus distance), the licensee cannot be relieved of maintaining these records. Second, as noted by other member jurisdictions, despite reference to the contrary, there is nothing short-term about this solution. These are permanent amendments to the Articles of Agreement and Procedures Manual. Third, North Carolina is generally concerned with the ballot's reference to "specific schedules." This language, as noted in the AAC comments, is imprecise and ambiguous.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	Section 31701(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) defines "Fuel Use Tax" as a "tax imposed on or measured by the *consumption of fuel* in a motor vehicle" (emphasis added.) Oklahoma would note that the term "consumption" is a crucial factor in the implementation of the tax. It suggests that the tax should be imposed on the amount of fuel used, which inherently implies a direct relationship with the actual usage or burn of fuel. Switching to a distance-based approach would deviate significantly from this measure, instead levying tax based on miles travelled, regardless of the actual fuel consumed. It is hard to imagine a valid “Fuel Use Tax” where the amount of fuel used was irrelevant. This ballot would likely violate the US Constitution’s Compact Clause, by agreeing among the jurisdictions to collect and distribute taxes in a way not authorized by Congress. Beyond the ballot, this congressional language limited to ‘fuel use tax’ raises the question of whether states imposing VMT require additional congressional authorization to collect it via interjurisdictional cooperation (IFTA). Oklahoma has concerns that if this ballot were to pass it would fundamentally change the way IFTA functions in a ultra vires manner. Oklahoma agrees with the policy goals of this ballot and would suggestion a redrafting of the proposal that would correct the legal authority issues. PLEASE NOTE: It is Oklahoma's understanding that the Attorney Advisory Committee (AAC) has drafted advisory comments on this topic, however the AAC has not been permitted to post their comments. Oklahoma finds this act of gatekeeping concerning.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	The preamble suggests the use of schedules is based on how a jurisdiction treats specific fuels; however, it is written based on how a jurisdiction taxes, regardless of fuel type. Indiana now meets the description of “member jurisdictions that have elected to tax alternative fuels used in qualified motor vehicles based on distance” so as written R820 and P550 would not apply to Indiana, period. It appears the intent of R820 and P550 is that it “would not apply to specific schedules included on the IFTA tax Return for alternative fuels which a member jurisdiction has elected to tax based on distance when used in qualified motor vehicles.” As well, Indiana continues to meet the description of “member jurisdiction is imposing tax based on fuel consumption” so as written P720.350 and P1040.300 apply to Indiana. It appears the intent of P720.350 and P1040.300 is limited to “if the tax imposed by the member jurisdiction on that fuel is based on consumption” or “if the member jurisdiction is imposing tax on that fuel, based on consumption.”
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	This ballot has Saskatchewan's support if / once the committee has studied the various reporting options for alternative fuels and determined that reporting based on a consumption rate or reporting based on distance are the only two methods IFTA will accommodate. We do not want to prematurely invest in IT system changes only to have to make further changes to accommodate different reporting methods not yet identified or analyzed. We would prefer the committee to complete its work prior to a ballot being brought forward on this matter. Saskatchewan recognizes the need to be supportive of other jurisdictions for whom this is a more urgent matter. We acknowledge the importance of acting quickly to accommodate jurisdictions that require reporting based on distance.
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	In this spirit of the agreement and R140 we as members agree to administer IFTA taxes cooperatively. A member jurisdiction has legislated to tax alternative fuel vehicles on a per-mileage-based fee. This ballot is the first step of changes that may come as the taxation of "fuel" or "road" taxes evolves. This ballot supports our fellow jurisdiction's tax legislation.
Stakeholders	Support	Industry Advisory Committee Chuck Ledig, Chair Support Comments: It is the position of the IFTA Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) that the frameworks and constructs that govern the future methods for collecting tax revenues and fees associated with alternatively fueled / propelled vehicles meet three core principles (i.e. “core-principle test”): they are 1) efficient, 2) clear and 3) fair to all stakeholders. The current frameworks and methodologies employed for collecting distance associated with IFTA qualified vehicles and the resulting filing of tax returns through IFTA meet the core-principle test, in and of itself. The changes proposed to the Agreement by Ballot 3-2023, to allow the same distance and same architecture to be utilized to collect tax simply based on this distance, also meet the core-principle test. Understanding that the effort of the IFTA chartered, Alternative Fuels Committee (AFC) will continue / be ongoing, with respect to enhancing and improving the IFTA in this regard, we support this ballot as a solution to the immediate need created by the passage of ballot 8-2022 last year.
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 30
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #4 - 2023

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	This new standing committee that was approved last year should have the ability to put forth a ballot similar to other standing committees.
DELAWARE	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	Oklahoma believes this committee should be a Working Group or a Task Force rather than a standing committee.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	We as members voted to make the Alternative Fuel Committee a standing committee last year at the annual business meeting. Last year, language was missed in that vote to allow the Alternative Fuel Committee to put forth a ballot. This ballot simply is cleaning up last year's vote to allow this committee to act the same as the other standing committees and propose ballots.
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 17
Oppose: 3
Undecided: 4

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #3 - 2023

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
FLORIDA	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided	We support the change in R1020. We do not support the changes to P550. Comments from jurisdictions such as South Dakota and North Carolina show that these proposed changes complicate things more than clarify them. We are still determining if the changes to R820, P720, P1040 are really necessary. Nevertheless, we plan to have our return programmed to accommodate Indiana’s tax rate and calculations, so that we can collect the appropriate tax owed to Indiana from IL carriers. To do this, instead of creating a new fuel type and column in the tax rate matrix, we prefer using an additional row to display consumption rates based on distance. Using additional rows to capture other rates, such as surcharges and split rates, is already familiar.
IOWA	Undecided	Iowa is generally supportive of this measure and understands the need for IFTA to support the collection of the EV-mileage based fuel tax in Indiana and apportion that revenue to all other IFTA jurisdictions. However, we need to continue to review this ballot to be fully confident that we do not inadvertently create two fuel tax types with the risk that a customer could challenge that they are apportionable. In other words, we need clear language to say that an EV fuel tax is apportionable regardless of the method in which it was collected. The same would need to apply if a jurisdiction chose to switch from a diesel-per-gallon tax to a diesel-per-mile tax, for example. Iowa collects EV-per-gallon; Indiana collects EV-per-mile. So a truck with mileage in both states should therefore apportion the revenue from the EV fuel tax. We look forward to any clarifying calls with members to ensure that this issue is addressed.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support	MB supports this ballot in order to move forward on this specific issue.
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska shares the concerns raised by NC and finds the ballot confusing. It will be the jurisidictions responsiblity to advise their carriers on record keeping requirements that will withstand judicial review and based on this language, we would find that difficult.
NEVADA	Oppose	Nevada agrees with SD. Regardless of how we are calculating alternative fuels, the record keeping requirements need to remain the same, (1) for Audit purposes, (2) to be less confusing for the customers. (We already have some customers that get confused between our requirements and DOT requirements.) Let’s not make it any more difficult. The biggest comments from the AAC, is that it has always been consumption based and now we are trying to change it to distance based because of the law in Indiana. But what if a jurisdiction started taxing other alternative fuels (E85 or ethanol for example) based on distance rather than on consumption. Would this ballot open the door to distance tax collection on alternative fuels that are currently taxed on consumption? (NE) Want to make sure these changes are for alternative fuels (EV) only, and that it does not open the door to change how the calculations are currently done for the current fuel types (diesel, gasoline, etc.) on the IFTA return. Some of the other concerns, is that it does not appear to be a short-term solution but may have significant impact for the long term and should be completely assessed before a ballot is brought. (SK, NE) It is really confounding that we’re being asked to vote on a ballot regarding a change that has no set guidelines or consensus on any level (IFTA, Federal, or State wise). We also feel that IFTA should be giving guidance for the jurisdictions, not the jurisdictions dictating what we calculate? If one jurisdiction goes distance, there should be a guideline for distance regardless of which jurisdiction. That way when a state law does come into play the jurisdiction can act at the legislative level and state that we are following IFTA guidelines.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	North Carolina has two primary concerns with this ballot. It's first concern is the changes to P550. The relief of record keeping requirements is unclear and ambiguous. The intent of the statute provides as follows: "As noted above, if the same vehicle using the same fuel type, also travels through another jurisdiction that applies their fuel use tax in the traditional way by applying a tax rate to the taxable gallons (volume) or using a different method besides applying the tax rate to distance, then the requirements to maintain records and report total fuel consumed and report the MPG, are not affected by these proposed changes and there is no exclusion from the requirements in those instances." North Carolina does not believe that the intent of the ballot is achieved with the current language. It is much more clear to state that the requirements contained in P550 do not apply to motor carriers operating exclusively within jurisdictions where the tax is imposed on the consumption of the motor fuel by applying a tax rate to distance. For instance, if a motor carrier is maintaining bulk storage facilities and making withdrawals in a member jurisdiction that imposes the tax based on distance, and travels in a member jurisdiction that imposes the tax based on consumption, does the motor carrier have to maintain bulk withdrawal records? The withdrawals are occurring in a member jurisdiction where the "tax is imposed on the consumption of fuel by applying a tax rate to distance." Although it could be interpreted to require record keeping when travel occurs in a member jurisdiction that taxes based on consumption, the legal concern is that the answer may be unclear. Further, the P550 record keeping requirements are unclear for motor carriers that maintain bulk storage facilities in a member jurisdiction that imposes the tax based on distance and who generally only travels in those jurisdictions. The record keeping requirement exemption, as proposed by the ballot, becomes problematic if that motor carrier then incidentally travels in a member jurisdiction that imposes the tax based on consumption. For example, accordingly to P550.400, the licensee must maintain retail records for receipts for all deliveries and quarterly inventory reconciliations for each tank. When does that obligation begin? If the motor carrier then ceases travel in jurisdictions that tax based on consumption, when does the obligation end? Is it the reporting period that the motor carrier traveled in the jurisdiction that taxes based on consumption? What if the travel was in the beginning of the reporting period? It is unclear and places auditors in a difficult position to evaluate fuel use and provides little guidance to motor carriers about its record keeping obligations as their travel routes my change overtime. North Carolina's concern with the clarity of P550 is rooted in risks for litigation. In North Carolina, most of our litigation stems from P550. Therefore, we are very sensitive to changes to this section. Introducing any ambiguity will have a severe, long-lasting impact to our collection efforts as more member jurisdictions introduce distance based taxation. North Carolina also views this ballot primarily from a risk assessment perspective. Without the ballot, the motor carrier must maintain records that may not be needed. With the passage of this ballot, either: (1) the motor carrier fails to maintain records due to reliance on unclear language that exposes the motor carrier to unnecessary assessments; or (2) the member jurisdiction's assessment fails to be upheld in court where a court determines that records were not required to be maintained. The risk to member jurisdictions and motor carriers trying to understand the language greatly outweighs the potential benefits of removing records keeping requirements for certain motor carriers. The second concern is one that is shared by South Dakota. When a motor carrier operates in at least one jurisdiction that calculates tax on consumption and not distance, to properly calculate the miles per fuel consumption, all fuel placed in the qualified motor vehicle must be reported.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OHIO	Undecided	Ohio shares the same concerns as South Dakota. We believe it is generally important for taxpayers to maintain complete records. Additionally, “instance of taxation” is not defined and could create confusion.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support	PEI supports this ballot in order to move forward with next steps. We share South Dakota’s concern that jurisdictions, or carriers, may interpret the language different than the intent and there may be missing records/reports based on a misunderstanding. However, we are willing to see if this actually happens once carriers start crossing borders of jurisdictions with different means of taxing.
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Oppose	South Dakota believes that the instance of taxation will determine what information the carrier will be responsible for reporting for fuel. For example, a carrier is driving from Indiana to South Dakota. He fuels his qualified electric vehicle in every state with x amount of electricity. The way South Dakota reads this ballot, the fuel placed in the qualified motor vehicle in Indiana, where the “instances of taxation is imposed on the consumption by applying a tax rate to distance,” would exclude them from reporting that x amount of fuel used for Indiana. Section P550 also has a similar effect of excluding the record keeping requirement where the tax is imposed on the consumption of fuel by applying a tax rate to distance. By not having to include all fuel placed in every qualified motor vehicle in the reporting or record keeping requirements it may give a false per mile fuel consumption rate which could negatively impact other jurisdictions tax amounts. Without the reporting or the record keeping required information for auditors to audit how will they be able to verify the correct amount of tax was appropriated to each jurisdiction for use? There would be no way to determine what vehicles are being driven in jurisdictions that impose tax on the consumption of fuel only. South Dakota understands the need to address the different taxation methodologies that are being looked at in jurisdictions. By leaving the language in the agreement, as is, it would require all fuel put into a qualified motor vehicle regardless of how tax will apply to be recorded on the returns and records kept for auditors to verify that fuel. We also look for ease of our taxpayers. If the IFTA licensee must try and decide what information is reported and what information must be kept in their records based on instances, this would make it harder to comply with the IFTA agreement.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Ballot #2 2022
Ballot #5 2022

Support: 30
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 3

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #1 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support	Alberta is generally supportive but shares the concern expressed by other jurisdictions that there should be a minimum number of jurisdictions voting or a qourum to pass an amendment. It is also not clear if this will apply to the other 2022 ballots.
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided	Illinois conditionally agrees with the ballot objective, which is to eliminate the counting of a “non-vote” as a “no vote”. An affirmative vote of three-fourths of the total eligible member jurisdictions who vote is required to amend the Articles of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual. Since member jurisdictions who abstain from voting will no longer be included in a vote tally, an amendment could be passed/defeated without a majority of eligible members voting. Ballot #1, as it is currently written, is deficient without any required quorum of eligible member jurisdictions who must vote. Illinois would agree with this ballot initiative if such a quorum is established.
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports this ballot that a non-vote does not count as a "No", but we also wonder about a minimum number of votes to pass if voting activity is light as has been mentioned in other comments. In addition, the effective date is upon passage, does that mean if the ballots are voted on in order, that this approved ballot is effective for all subsequent ballot votes within the same session?
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided	Manitoba agrees with the comments made by Illinois. With no minimum quorum set, an amendment could pass with few jurisdictions voting.
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	MN Supports this ballot as written
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Nebraska supports the ballot, but agrees that adding quorum language would be preferrable.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	North Carolina has multiple concerns with this ballot. First, because the ballot is proposing the effective change be upon passage, it becomes unclear whether the other seven (7) ballots will be affected by this change. This should be made clear to the jurisdictions when a vote is made on whether to make it effective immediately. Second, a minimum number of votes casts or a quorum should be required to change the Articles of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual. It is possible, although unlikely, that a handful of votes could fundamentally change how IFTA functions and how it regulates the activities of motor carriers. Comparisons to legislation, parliamentary procedures, and other voting procedures have been brought up as justification for this change. However, they are not apt comparisons because of the lack of a quorum requirement. For organizations (see e.g., IFTA Inc. Bylaws) and legislatures (see e.g., U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 1) quorums are required before action can be taken. Moving forward, although many ballots will be voted upon at the ABM, this will not apply in all circumstances. Third, the voting procedure should maintain the ability for a jurisdiction to abstain from voting. This is a strategic decision that should not be removed, and it maintains the ballot's purpose of encouraging voting. There are legitimate reasons to allow a jurisdiction a vote to abstain. For example, there may be a conflict of interest for a particular member jurisdiction and that jurisdiction may feel that it is in the best interests of the jurisdiction or the organization to abstain from voting. The ability to abstain serves an important function in allowing a jurisdiction to tell the IFTA community that it has abstained. Also, as a practical matter, when votes are submitted at the ABM, not allowing an abstention will unnecessarily complicate the process if a jurisdiction is ready, willing, and able to submit a vote but chooses not to. As shown in North Carolina's suggested language, a quorum would be required. When a ballot is cast when not at a meeting, an abstention will count to determine whether there is a quorum but will not affect the outcome of the vote. North Carolina is open whether a quorum is a majority of the total eligible member jurisdictions or 2/3 of the total eligible member jurisdictions. However, 2/3 would be consistent with the IFTA Inc. bylaws. North Carolina would support this ballot if a quorum requirement was added. Please see the following link for our suggested changes: Click Here
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	PA recognizes there are both positive aspects and negative concerns to this ballot. Our opinion is that the original voting thresholds were in place for good reason; that the agreement should not be adjusted without an overwhelming majority in support of change; however, we realize the purpose of this ballot is to gain compliance, voting participation, and make the IFTA voting process more sensible based on historical and logistical voting trends, availability to vote, and any other situations that may arise that could impede the jurisdictions' voting processes; therefore, we support this ballot overall...
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	PEI Agrees with Illinois' comments.
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 20
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 8

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support	Alberta is supportive of the intent of this ballot. The suggested wording however makes it somewhat unclear. Alberta recommends using phrasing that is more consistent with P540.100 such as: Distance records produced by a vehicle tracking system utilizing latitudes and longitudes which creates and maintains, at a minimum of every 15 minutes when the vehicle’s engine is on, a record that contains the following elements shall be accepted by the base jurisdiction as adequate under this article: .005 the date and time of each system reading, .010 the latitude and longitude calculated to four decimal places of each system reading, .015 the engine control module (ECM) reading of each system reading or, if an vehicle is not equipped with an ECM, the beginning and ending dashboard odometer or hubodometer readings, and .020 the vehicle identification number or vehicle unit number.
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose	While the Intent of the Ballot Proposal includes the statement, “The intent is not to exclude future or current technologies that would sufficiently capture distance accrued and allow for the verification of distance,” the actual crossed out wording in the Procedures appears to be narrowing the scope of electronic systems which are acceptable. The ballot shows the removal of “other location data” (.005), “other system reading”(.010), and “the location of each GPS or other system reading” (.015) from the Procedures manual. Eliminating the possibility of using other system readings from vehicle tracking devices such as city, state, and zip code to only using longitude/latitude readings unfairly assumes that all the jurisdictions’ audit systems are capable of reading longitude and latitude readings. Jurisdictions that accept and use data such as city, state, and zip code readings would be non-compliant. Also, the ballot appears to be eliminating other forms of data captures like “the route of the vehicle’s travel” (.030), “the total distance traveled by the vehicle” (.035),and such. Removing data that can be used to verify raw data seems counterproductive. Furthermore, eliminating “other location data” or “other system reading” creates a burden on taxpayers whose GPS providers do not provide longitude/latitude data to their customers without additional fees.
INDIANA	Support	IN supports the ballot, and the changes to the language. Ballot provides uniformity to carriers and for all jurisdictions.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Maine has concerns with the 15-minute interval and how this would be interpreted by system providers and suggest the following: .200 Distance records produced by a vehicle tracking system that utilizes latitudes and longitudes, a record must be created and maintained at a minimum every 10 minutes when the vehicle’s engine is on, *including when the engine is started and turned off*, and contain the following data elements: .005 the date and time of each system reading, .010 the latitude and longitude to include a minimum of 4 decimal places (0.0001) of each system reading .015 the odometer reading from the engine control module (ECM) of each system reading. If no ECM odometer is available a beginning and ending dashboard odometer or hubodometer for the trip will be acceptable. .020 the vehicle identification number or vehicle unit number This data must be accessible in an electronic spreadsheet format such as XLS, XLSX, CSV or delimited text file. Formats from a vehicle tracking system that provides a static image such as PDF, JPEG, PNG, or Word are not accessible. One of our other concerns is there appears to be a gap in record keeping requirements. P540.100 provides record keeping requirements for “other than vehicle-tracking systems” and the proposed change to P540.200 provides record keeping requirements for “vehicle tracking systems that utilizes latitudes and longitudes”. What about vehicle tracking systems that do not use latitudes and longitudes? Should we have a section that is a catch-all? Or should it refer back to P540.100? Or should P540.100 be restated such as “For all records produced by a system that does not utilizes latitudes and longitudes”?
MANITOBA	Undecided	Manitoba does not want to force carriers to have specific systems due to the potential cost if the system they are currently using is compliant with what is currently required.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is favorable to this ballot proposal. We would like to consider lowering the record to every ten minutes for alignment with IRP. We would like to understand the prohibition against static images as the proposal is not clear as to the reasoning for their removal
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided	New Hampshire aggrees with Maine we would like to see 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes.
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	First, the ballot states that as it applies to "[d]istance records produced by a vehicle tracking system that utilizes latitudes and longitudes." In reference to Maine’s comment and Illinois’ comment, where P540 provides what records must be maintained, North Carolina reads the language to exclude vehicle-tracking systems not using latitudes and longitudes. There does not appear to be a clear ‘third option’ based on how this is written. If this is the intent, it may be more clear to state that the "Distance records produced by a vehicle tracking system must use latitudes and longitudes . . ." However, this is contrary to the intent of the ballot as noted by Illinois. Because the stated intent of the ballot is inconsistent with the language as drafted, North Carolina is undecided. North Carolina is open to working with the sponsor to ensure the intent of the ballot matches the language of the ballot. Second, the requirements that data be in an accessible format is 'hanging' on its own. It would be better to incorporate it into the leading paragraph. Incorporating a few other tweaks and the fix above, it may be better for it to read as follows: "Distance records produced by a vehicle tracking system must use latitudes and longitudes coordiantes. This data must be accessible in an electronic spreadsheet format such as XLS, XLSX, CSV, or delimited text file. Formats from a vehicle tracking system that provides a static image such as PDF, JPEG, PNG, or Word are not accessible formats. A record must be created and maintained at a minimum every 15 minutes when the vehicle’s engine is on and contain all of the following data elements: . . . . " Third, GPS coordinates can be noted by either by DD (decimal degrees) or DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds). It appears the ballot is referring to DD. Therefore, the following changes may make it more clear: ".010 the latitude and longitude in decimal degrees with a minimum of 4 decimal places (e.g., 0.0001) of for each system reading" Finally, it appears that requirements for total distance traveled and distance traveled by jurisdiction were removed. It may be helpful in reviewing a motor carrier's records to quickly see the summary data. Therefore, the sponsor should consider re-including those requirements, specifically .035 and .040.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Oppose	We support the data format requirements and where the latitude and longitude are provided the requirements listed are sufficient but we feel the requirements are too restrictive. Listing the data elements that must be created takes away a jurisdiction’s discretion to accept alternate data elements that it considers adequate.
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Agree with the importance of removing the ability to provide static images versus formats that are compatible with Excel. Concerns with removing the requirement to include route of travel, total distance traveled by vehicle, and distance traveled in each jurisdiction since this information is important to allow jurisdictions to validate the raw data. A daily summary that reflects the distance per jurisdiction for each vehicle is now missing from the proposal which would be an important piece for audit purposes. The proposed amendment states that if no ECM odometer is available, a beginning and ending dashboard odometer or hubodometer for the trip will be acceptable. This would not be sufficient for IFTA audit purposes since the trip could cross multiple jurisdictions and would hinder the auditor’s ability to verify jurisdictional distance. Lastly, if the carrier has the ability to provide electronic records, they should be required to provide records electronically for audit purposes.
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	South Dakota supports this ballot. I applaud the work of both audit committees in IFTA and IRP and the time and effort they took to look at this subject. This ballot will give industry and jurisdictions a source to be able to audit effectively for all jurisdictions.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Agree with Manitoba. Also question if there is really a problem here that needs to be fixed.
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Reviewing to determine if restricting data formats to an electronic spreadsheet format, therefore excluding data that may be available by other means, would be problematic.
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 32
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 1

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #3 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support	As written it is not clear if the board is requesting a resolution under the provisions of the DRP, or if the jurisdiction has failed to bring its IFTA program into compliance under the provisions of the DRP. The DRP remedies 3 and 4 imply that it is the resolution that is requested pursuant to the Articles. For clarity Alberta suggests that the wording of R1555.300.005 be amended as follows: The IFTA, Inc. Board of Trustees may request, under the provisions of the IFTA Dispute Resolution Process, a resolution to expel a member jurisdiction which has failed to bring its IFTA program into compliance
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided	The issues discussed in Ballot #1, would have application here in that a Jurisdiction’s expulsion could be accomplished with fewer than a majority of eligible members voting.
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	Please use interlining and underlining to indicate deletion/addition.
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 31
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #4 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	Even though this may not impact the states, we should all join with the Canadian provinces to support this ballot.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	South Dakota supports this ballot. This will allow Canadian Jurisdiction clarity in the interest rate and become more uniform.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 12
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 15

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #5 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta is not opposed to the concept but has concerns with the use of the word penalty as the ballot refers to "interest penalty". If the intent is to compensate jurisdictions for the time value of money lost on amounts being received late resulting from another jurisdiction not transmitting data to the clearinghouse on time then the word penalty should be removed. Alberta also believes there should also be exceptions for extenuating circumstances and has concerns with the amount of extra work this could cause for small amounts.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support	In favor of the concept. Would this be optional to the Jurisdictions to determine if they want to pursue the interest owed and also have the authority to consider de minimis and not cost effective to purse? Will it be a finding later during review if a jurisdiction decides to not pursue?
IDAHO	Undecided	Not opposed to the concept, but would like more information regarding exactly how this would work logistically.
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Undecided	There needs to be an out for extenuating circumstances?? Kansas has of yet to experiene any issues, but if we did, I assume it would be something completely out of our control. Side note:The phrase 'Interest Penalty' will take some getting used to, we tend not to use those 2 words together. ' Assessment' could be used alternatively. Overall, discussion at the ABM might be helpful.
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Maine finds the language in this ballot unclear as to the amount interest is to be calculated on. We also think it could conflict with current clearinghouse proration practices. Maine thinks the intent of this ballot could be better served as part of the clearinghouse access agreement.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	The process as outlined seems rigid and could take up valuable resources that are better put to use elsewhere. Minnesota would like to better understand the need as it exists today and the impact this could potentially have on jurisdictions.
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska is unclear on the specifics and welcomes the discussion at the annula meeting.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided	There may be extending circumstances when a jurisdiction may not be abe to pay a transmittal on time. Would there be a provision for these types of circumstances?
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina recommends that references to "penalties" be removed. North Carolina, and many other States, make a distinction between penalties and interest. Further, the Agreement also makes this distinction. See for example R1210.300 separating the categories between penalties and interest. Further, it is not required (or best drafting practices) to place the identical proposed language in three places. Once in the Agreement or other document will suffice. Finally, and structurally, it does not belong within R2120. Although it is related to timely upload transmittal data, the assessment of interest is a distinct concept. Therefore, it merits its own section. As amended (with a few tweaks): "R2130 INTEREST ASSESSED FOR UNTIMELY SUBMITTED TRANSMITTAL DATA Participating Members failing to timely upload any Transmittal Data per the Funds Netting Calendar will be assessed an interest penalty at the prevailing IFTA, Inc. interest rate per in accordance with Articles of Agreement, Agreement Section R1230. The participating members shall be required to pay interest to each jurisdiction . . . ." Note - North Carolina would like to hear more from other jurisdictions about concerns they have with calculating the interest owed.
NORTH DAKOTA	Undecided
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	The language of this ballot is not clear. Need more information. We join Maine's comment.
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Require more information on how interest would be distributed, proration of interest, interest due date, potential to waive interest due to unforeseen circumstances, and the current number and size of jurisdictions that are not compliant.
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
TENNESSEE	Oppose
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Open to further discussion and consideration, but first impression is that this seems like a rigid solution to a rare problem, which could perhaps be better addressed (and include consideration of mitigating circumstances) under existing processes for program compliance and dispute resolution.
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Warrants further conversation with member jurisdictions.
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided	Unsure
WYOMING	Undecided	We would like to hear discussion on this ballot before making a decision.

Support: 17
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 9

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #6 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Undecided
INDIANA	Undecided	More discussion required.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Maine is not sure if it is a good idea to codify the clearinghouse data quality plan as any changes in data parameters would need to go through the ballot process before changes to the plan could be made.
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska welcomes discussion of this ballot in conjuction with the Data Quality Plan discussion both scheduled at the ABM.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina recommends that references to "penalties" be removed. North Carolina, and many other States, make a distinction between penalties and interest. Further, the Agreement also makes this distinction. See for example R1210.300 separating the categories between penalties and interest. Further, it is not required (or best drafting practices) to place the identical proposed language in three places. Once in the Agreement or other document will suffice. Finally, and structurally, it does not belong within R2120. Although it is related to timely upload transmittal data, the assessment of interest is a distinct concept. Therefore, it merits its own section. As amended (with a few tweaks): "R2130 INTEREST ASSESSED FOR UNTIMELY SUBMITTED TRANSMITTAL DATA Participating Members failing to timely upload any Transmittal Data per the Funds Netting Calendar will be assessed interest at the prevailing IFTA, Inc. interest rate in accordance with Articles of Agreement Agreement Section R1230. The participating members shall be required to pay interest to each jurisdiction . . . ."
ONTARIO	Undecided	Ontario understands and supports the concept of quality data and the necessity for consistency across all IFTA jurisdictions. However, as written the intent and workings are unclear in some instances. We recommend editing the ballot for clarity and consistency. Some suggested edits are as follows: Ensure all groups mentioned are named correctly, e.g., committee names and IFTA Team – does this refer to IFTA, Inc.? Clarify what is meant by “advisories”. Modify language in the addition to R2120.200 for clarity: .100 – how will the data quality/validation checks be demonstrated to IFTA, Inc.? .200 – the IFTA Clearinghouse “can” reject the file or “must” reject the file. If a decision is being made, how will it be made? .300 – how/when will these corrections occur? Ensure all related provision in the Agreement & Procedures Manual are aligned.
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Warrants further discussion with member jurisdictions.
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose	If this could happen automatically for us within our systems we would possibly consider it. It would be a task to get it set up for automation if it was required. There is no way that we could manually test the data. We do not have enough staff in IT take on this task. Additionally, it would be a large undertaking for our IT to get an automatic testing program or connect created given the reduced work force.
WYOMING	Undecided	We would like to hear discussion on this ballot before making a decision.

Support: 22
Oppose: 4
Undecided: 3

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #7 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support	Providing an option to conduct records reviews will increase a jurisdiction’s coverage, and increase compliance with IFTA recordkeeping requirements.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Oppose
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota supports this ballot. We believe that a timely records review can help educate a carrier and prevent unintended and unwanted errors. We feel that this ballot rewards jurisdictions for working with new carriers as they build relationships early on in the life of the carrier.
NEBRASKA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	New Brunswick does not feel that a licensee education program provides the same level of assurance on the accuracy of the information reported as an audit.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support	New Hampshire supports this and is a cosponser
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolinas has technical drafting and substantive concerns. North Carolina has previously expressed its substantive concerns, which most jurisdictions may be aware of based on our comments from the 2021 ballot version. However, due to how close this vote will be, North Carolina will focus this comment on the concerns it has regarding the technical language of this ballot. Ultimately, the technical concerns rise to such a level that North Carolina implores the jurisdictions that support this ballot to consider allowing another comment period after the ABM. Due to the length required to address all of these technical concerns, North Carolina is only able note our most significant concerns. North Carolina will actively work with the sponsors to address these concerns if given the opportunity to do so. Although we object to the overall purpose of the ballot, North Carolina is willing to support this ballot if the technical issues are addressed and the records reviews are limited to new licensees. North Carolina proposes that new Licensee are licensees who have recently applied for and received a license issued by their base jurisdiction; they are considered a New Licensee for 18 months. A records review could only be conducted within 12 months after a licensee first becomes licensed with their base jurisdiction. Technical Issues – Top 10 First, R248 and A500 overlap with the same subject matter regarding what constitutes a records review. Duplicative material is never advisable in drafting legislative or similar language. One of the reasons to avoid it is here: The substantive material across these sections do not match. For example, R248 1. and A500.010 refer to different periods (scope of less than a full year versus scope of less than a full reporting period). There are further discrepancies between these sections, raising other concerns. A simple internal reference from R248 to A500 would solve all these issues. Second, on Page 3, Line 37, the Audit Manual does not provide “guidelines,” it provides requirements or rules that must be complied with if a jurisdiction wants credit for a records review. This distinction is important as it should never be perceived that the governing documents are optional unless it is clearly intended. Third, the internal citations to the governing documents are inconsistent, including not capitalizing “Audit Manual.” These issues are throughout the ballot and need be addressed so that the citations are uniform. Fourth, the language stating that a record reviews “is not required to compare records” is not clear. Can a jurisdiction review the records or not? Allow it or forbid it. This language accomplishes neither. Fifth, there is nothing stopping a jurisdiction from converting a record review into an audit after it reviews the record keeping system. All of the “intent” language beginning on page 5, line 101 is non-binding. Therefore, reference to the 180 days assessment immunity period is illusory and provides motor carriers a false sense of what can occur after a records review is initiated by a jurisdiction. Issues six through ten have a similar fatal flaw: the attempt to streamline the language by incorporating A240, A320, and A460 simply cannot work. The records review requirements needs to have its own language, distinct and separate from audit requirements. Sixth (incorporating A240), A510.300 completely undercuts A510.100.005 regarding who can perform a records review. This issue is particularly troubling. A240, in the context of records reviews, requires persons completing records review to: (1) be qualified based on the member jurisdiction’s personnel guidelines; (2) conduct themselves in a manner promoting cooperation and good relations with licensees and member jurisdictions; (3) give all licensees and member jurisdictions fair consideration; and (4) maintain proficiency in IFTA auditing (records reviews?) by providing training opportunities through internal or external training sources. What is wrong with these requirements? Should these not be applied to everyone performing a records review? Why should “personnel processing Licensee applications” be exempt from these requirements? Was this intended to remove the word “auditor” from A240? If yes, the ballot attempts to re-write A240 without doing so. Otherwise, what hole did we just create here? Seventh (incorporating A460), A510.100.025 provides that the written report must be in compliance with certain sections of A460. The language and the lead-in to A460 prevents this compliance. The lead-in provides that a copy of the audit report must be kept in the audit file. Should the records review still be maintained? If so, where? It is not clear through this incorporation. This too results in an attempt to re-write language without doing so. Eighth, (incorporating A320), A510.100.025 provides that A320.200 and A320.700 applies to record reviews. These make explicit references to an “audit period” and an “audit report.” These are not audits; these are records review. This, again, results in an attempt to re-write language without doing so. Ninth (incorporating A460), A510.100.025, strikes reference to an “audit period” found in A460.100.50. This is in direct contradiction with the attempts identified in #8 above to maintain the use of the word “audit” within the context of records reviews. This makes the underlying incorporation of audit requirements inconsistent across the ballot changes. Tenth (incorporating A460), A510.100.025 excludes an auditor’s evaluation of adequacy of records under A460.500.030. The entire purpose of a records review is to evaluate the system of record. This ballot requires a document review to comply with parts of A460.500, including "[i]dentify[ing] source documents" and "[i]dentify[ing] the information in source documents." Therefore, this evaluation is necessary when the auditor is assessing the adequacy of documents under A460.500. If any jurisdiction is still reading this, we thank you. North Carolina remains open to helping the sponsors address all issues to make this the best ballot we can for all the member jurisdictions.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support	North Dakota is a sponsor of this ballot and supports the ballot. North Dakota uses the record review as an educational tool for all or our new carriers. This ballot is optional for the jurisdictions to utilize a record review program or not. This ballot will help the jurisdictions to reach more carriers to increase compliance, decrease errors and help all jurisdictions receive the correct tax amount due. This ballot outlines the minimum requirements needed for the record review to qualify for an audit credit. We encourage all jurisdictions to support this ballot and give those jurisdictions who choose the ability to use this credit.
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	PA supports this ballot, as we have a very comprehensive, effective, and efficient records review program that we have employed for 10+ years with great success. Our only concern would be whether other jurisdictions' programs would be satisfactory to our jurisdiction and the IFTA community in general. As long as these records reviews are treated seriously and not taken advantage of, and are periodically reviewed by the Peer Review Compliance Audits, we support this ballot.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Oppose	Even though this ballot is optional we are opposed. Quebec has a record review program for new licensees (up to one year) to help them put together a compliant records. We believe this brings a great help to them so we can't count them as audits.
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	South Dakota is a sponsor of this ballot and supports the ballot. South Dakota uses the review as an educational tool for our new carriers. We support this ballot as it gives the options for jurisdictions to use the review program or not. The ballot is also written to allow jurisdictions to set up a review program and have the latitude to make the review program how they want to use it. The ballot lays out the minimum requirements to be reviewed using the current audit requirements. If the requirements are met they will qualify for credit. The ballot also does not stop a jurisdiction from doing more than the minimum. The ballot does not require a jurisdiction to reduce the number of full audits completed. The minimum requirements will also allow the Peer Compliance review team to verify reviews like audits. We encourage all jurisdictions to support this ballot and give the jurisdictions who choose to use the tool credit. The review gives jurisdictions the ability to help all jurisdictions get the correct amount of tax at the correct time by educating the carrier.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided	As long as this was optional WV would possibly agree.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 22
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 6

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #8 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support	Has the definition of alternative fuels as defined by a Canadian institution been considered?
MARYLAND	Undecided	Maryland recognizes the importance of identifying alternative fuels as propellants, however, we're still in discussion regarding the possibilty of defining electrity as a motor fuel. We also recognize that electric vehicles are here and in operation, and the need to promptly address a viable solution.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota supports the ballot. We would like to see greater definition around alternative fuels and cooperation between IFTA and jurisdictions to develop best practices around taxation and record keeping.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	The proposed definition of motor fuel is too detailed and some examples may imply an exclusion of fuels. For example, consider "blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline." Does this language, by implication, exclude blends of 85% or less of alcohol with gasoline? Although "such as" should be interpreted to mean by example and without limitation, the list of examples may create unnecessary ambiguity. Further, North Carolina is concerned whether this definition of alternative fuel has been formally adopted by the U.S. Department of Energy. It was not able to find the citation to a statute or the Federal Register. If IFTA is going to adopt a definition in its entirety from a government agency, it should be one that is not easily subject to change and can be relied upon in a future where the ‘next fuel’ remains undetermined. North Carolina suggests a simpler, more succinct definition: "Motor Fuels means all fuels or energy placed in the fuel supply storage unit to propel a qualified motor vehicle." Also, motor fuels is a defined term. Therefore, adding "or other fuels as defined in R239" is unnecessary. See page 3, line 14; and page 3, line 19. It could cause confusion because of the expansive nature of the motor fuel definition (i.e. there are no other fuels other than motor fuels). Finally, although North Carolina is generally in support for this ballot, it cannot support it with immediate effect. As may be experienced by other jurisdictions, North Carolina’s IFTA enabling statute does not contemplate allowing North Carolina to enter an agreement (IFTA Articles of Agreement) that collects taxes from motor carriers related to fuel such as electricity. This would require a technical change (with a very high likelihood of passing) by the North Carolina legislature. North Carolina recommends that jurisdictions review their statute allowing it to enter into the Agreement to determine whether those jurisdictions need to make similar changes. North Carolina requests an effective date for January 1, 2024.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	As the industry moves to alternative fuels, it is time for IFTA to put a definition in place that encompasses those fuels. I like that using the definition from the US Department of Energy. This will allow jurisdictions to work together to find an acceptable solution to the taxation of these emerging fuels. This also helps make it a uniform approach to identifying the possible future fuel sources.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Warrants further discussion with member jurisdictions.
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided
WYOMING	Undecided	We would like to hear discussion on this ballot before making a decision.

Support: 5
Oppose: 6
Undecided: 7

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
Attorney Advisory Committee		Line 14 "a minimum of every" Line 22 (for example 0.0001) as stating this is not a certain but an example. Also there should be a period after "reading" Line 38 insert period The last part of proposed .200 is not properly aligned with the rest of the language of .200, with the result that it appears to be an orphaned paragraph, not part of the previous text of .200 Issue #1 The intent of the ballot may conflict with the language of ballot. The ballot provides the following: The intent is not to exclude future or current technologies that would sufficiently capture distance accrued and allow for the verification of distance. An example of such a technology would include geofencing. However, the ballot may restrict technologies to only technology using latitude and longitude coordinates. The existing language provides more inclusive language for technology. For example, it references vehicle tracking technology that "includes" GPS systems and allows for "GPS or other system reading." As drafted, it appears only "vehicle tracking system that utilizes latitudes and longitudes" are acceptable. Therefore, the intent of the ballot and the language of the ballot conflict. Issue #2 GPS coordinates can be noted by either by DD (decimal degrees) or DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds). It appears the ballot is referring to DD. This should be made explicit in the ballot. This would materially affect the accuracy.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided
ILLINOIS	Oppose	The ballot states that “the intent is not to exclude future or current technologies that would sufficiently capture distance accrued and allow for the verification of distance.” However, the ballot only promotes using longitude and latitude readings, and it eliminates the option to use other system readings from vehicle tracking systems. Not allowing jurisdictions or carriers discretion in deciding to use other record readings is too strict. The option for allowing other readings should be maintained and not taken away. Many carriers purchase basic vehicle tracking packages that offer the city, state, & zip code information because it is more affordable. To get a package that provides them with all the detailed longitude and latitude readings costs more, which puts an unnecessary strain on these businesses. A valid concern shared by Manitoba is that this could also potentially lead to one or two software companies monopolizing the industry. Furthermore, the ballot removes important information that can be used to verify and cross check the data such as: calculated distance between system readings, route of travel, total distance traveled by the vehicle, distance traveled in each jurisdiction. Data capturing requirements should be the same for all carriers regardless of if they produce records by an electronic vehicle tracking system or not. Basic data requirements should remain the same for cross checking and verification. It seems counterproductive to eliminate data that would help verify the readings and substantiate other reported information.
Industry Advisory Committee		Respectfully, the IFTA IAC would like to request the IFTA Audit Committee's consideration on two points stipulated in proposed section P540.200. First, record creation is unnecessary when a qualified vehicle is not in motion. There may be various reasons that a vehicle is not in motion while the vehicle's engine is on. Idling for driver comfort would be one such reason. Given the standing requirement related to odometer / hubometer readings in propose section P540.200.015, any material movement during such stationary periods could be otherwise substantiated / called into question by an auditing jurisdiction. Second, the IFTA IAC would like to highlight what seems to be a need for a minor modification to other verbiage contained in proposed section P540.200.015. It would seem that the Committee's intent is to require readings every ten minutes or less. This would mean a "maximum", versus "minimum" qualifier should be designated in the verbiage. The IAC would like to suggest that proposed Section P540.200 be considered for modification to read as follows: "Distance records produced by a vehicle tracking system that utilizes latitudes and longitudes, a record must be created and maintained at a maximum every 10 minutes when the vehicle is in motion and contain the following data elements:"
KANSAS	Undecided
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	The problem Maine is having with this type of language is not the use of latitude and longitude, but the fact that many systems (ELDs) use latitude and longitude but do have a way for carriers to provide latitude and longitude to audit. In those cases, we are to revert back to P540.100 (?) and audit as if it was trip reports. The systems may provide several reports all derived from latitude and longitude data set. But without access to the original data set or external collaborating information an audit cannot be done on the system used to calculate the miles for the tax return. Perhaps this can be an audit workshop topic.
MANITOBA	Oppose	Manitoba does not support this ballot as it appears to force carriers to purchase a certain type of system to meet the new requirements and the cost may be prohibitive for smaller carriers. This could also potentially lead to one or two software companies to monopolize the industry if their system met the proposed requirements and others didn’t. Additonally Manitoba agrees with some of the concerns of Rhode Island and Washington, specifically: 'Having the electronic tracking systems accessible in the formats listed is fine if the carrier and the jurisdiction has the ability to do this. If a carrier does not, then the “static” images should still be able to be utilized as “best information available”. This information can and must still be tested for reliability.' This ballot '...does not appear to allow for jurisdictional discretion in accepting records that are otherwise sufficient to support an audit and tax returns. Allowing jurisdictional discretion in acceptance of non-standard records, and providing a reasonable opportunity by the carrier to demonstrate their travel and fuel consumption (as opposed to a blanket determination that records must be not acceptable) ....'
MICHIGAN	Undecided	Michigan would support a frequency of every 10 minutes. based on comments from other jurisdictions, perhaps a range of 5-10 should be added. We also support ECM odometer data should be required with GPS data. Michigan would like to see 6 decimal places instead of 4. this would give a more specific locale (if longitude and laditude are provided). Michigan has concerns regarding the software and databases required to handle and store this amount of data. In many cases, we are required to store up to 4 years of data, per our statue. Lastly, we don't understand the reason to exclude static formats if all standard data is provided. If GPS and ECM electronic data is provided, should the spreadsheet or whatever electronic format used be locked/secured so it cannot be altered or modified?
NEVADA	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support	Since the longitude and latitude readings are now 10 minutes apart NH can support this ballot now.
NEW JERSEY	Support	New Jersey is supportive of Ballot 2-2022 based on the accuracy of longitude/latitude as being a superior form of assessing exact location for measuring distance. This form of measurement narrows the often-gray area of location versus zip codes or cities. The United State Census Bureau abandoned the use of zip codes in the year 2000 and reverted to the use of longitude/latitude to have a more reliable source of identifying location. We would like to lower the ping time to every ten minutes for alignment with IRP.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	First, the intent of the ballot may still conflict with the language of ballot. The ballot provides the following: "The intent is not to exclude future or current technologies that would sufficiently capture distance accrued and allow for the verification of distance. An example of such a technology would include geofencing." However, the ballot may restrict technologies to only technology using latitude and longitude coordinates. The existing language provides more inclusive language for technology. For example, it references vehicle tracking technology that “includes” GPS systems and allows for “GPS or other system reading.” As drafted, it appears only “vehicle tracking system that utilizes latitudes and longitudes” are acceptable. Therefore, the intent of the ballot and the language of the ballot conflict. This concerns North Carolina. Second, the requirements that data be in an accessible format is 'hanging' on its own after an enumerated list. It would be better to incorporate it into the leading paragraph or a new section (e.g. .300). Please see our previous Ballot Comment for suggested language. Third, GPS coordinates can be noted by either by DD (decimal degrees) or DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds). It appears the ballot is referring to DD. This should be made explicit in the ballot. This would materially affect the accuracy. Please see our previous Ballot Comment for suggested language. Four, it appears that requirements for total distance traveled and distance traveled by jurisdiction were removed. It may be helpful in reviewing a motor carrier's records to quickly see the summary data. Therefore, the sponsor should consider re-including those requirements, specifically .035 and .040. Fifth, and most critically, as noted by many other jurisdictions, North Carolina takes the position that static images (e.g., PDFs) should be acceptable in some circumstances.
ONTARIO	Oppose	We support the data format requirements and where the latitude and longitude are provided the requirements listed are sufficient but we feel the requirements are too restrictive. Listing the data elements that must be created takes away a jurisdiction’s discretion to accept alternate data elements that it considers adequate.
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	Pensylvania is undecided, as we are confused as to why static formats, such as PDF, are completely excluded. This is the PA IFTA Commissioner writing this and I am not an auditor, but I was an enforcement agent and records compliance inspector, and I can think of instances where PDF records should be acceptable, if not preferable (in specific instances). Our Bureau of Audits is also unsure as to why these formats are not acceptable either. Any further discussion is welcome. Thank you.
QUEBEC	Undecided	We would recommend a maximum of 5 minutes between GPS positions. We would recommend that sections 540.200.025, .030, .035 and .040 should not be deleted. .025 the calculated distance between each GPS or other system reading This section allows us to compare the routed distance to the odometer distance and identify any anomalies. Once identified the difference can be either adjusted or reported to the carrier for a resolution. We recommend that .030 to be maintained. .030 the route of the vehicle’s travel This will make verifying fuel purchase data much more difficult when matching to the travel at the time the trips are built or during an audit. We recommend that .035 an .040 to be maintained .035 the total distance traveled by the vehicle .040 the distance traveled in each jurisdiction Auditing procedures include the conciliation of distance by jurisdiction and total distance between summaries, reports and books.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose	I still have issues with this ballot for the following reasons, and I think some of these rewrites may actually hurt the small companies because of the expense involved: The time frame should be every 3-5 minutes. For the smaller jurisdictions, this can make a difference. Although ECMs have been used for audits in some jurisdictions for a long time, there is an expense to getting them. It used to be a jurisdiction requiring the carrier to go to a mechanic to have it read and was really only used if necessary. I don’t know if jurisdictions have the capability to do this themselves, but for a small trucking company, this can be expensive. I don’t know how often the odometer readings are saved by the ECM and if it connects to all electronic tracking systems. However, the section does give the opportunity to continue to use manual recordings, which I think will usually be the case. I don’t understand why ECMs are taking precedence. Having the electronic tracking systems accessible in the formats listed is fine if the carrier and the jurisdiction has the ability to do this. If a carrier does not, then the “static” images should still be able to be utilized as “best information available”. This information can and must still be tested for reliability. Is IFTA, Inc. close to “certifying” some electronic tracking systems? It seems like this is trying to get all size carriers over to electronic (which I know is the ultimate aim but still years away). If so, then they need to have companies/systems that are good for all budgets.
SASKATCHEWAN	Oppose
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Washington is generally supportive of this ballot that, when able, a carrier should be required to produce records containing certain elements and in certain formats. However, unlike the similar IRP ballot, this one does not appear to allow for jurisdictional discretion in accepting records that are otherwise sufficient to support an audit and tax returns. Allowing jurisdictional discretion in acceptance of non-standard records, and providing a reasonable opportunity by the carrier to demonstrate their travel and fuel consumption (as opposed to a blanket determination that records must be not acceptable) would resolve most of our concerns with this ballot as written. Additional comments provided directly to the ballot sponsors.

Support: 3
Oppose: 15
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #5 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
Attorney Advisory Committee		The lowercase or capital use of participating members is inconsistent
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Oppose
KANSAS	Oppose
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Oppose
MANITOBA	Oppose	Manitoba does not suport this ballot. It appears that in a lot of cases when information is not filed on time, it’s usually due to factors beyond the jurisidiction's control. A better option may be to propose annual fines to jurisdictions that were consistently late and don’t appear to be attempting to revise or correct their processes. If interest were to be applied, there should be a waiver process for a jurisdiction to ask for relief (for example, if the issue that caused the late funding was beyond the jurisidiction's control).
MICHIGAN	Support	Michigan would support this ballot but suggest language be added for unforseen circumstances, such as, natural disasters or pandemics.
NEVADA	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	The ballot still does not address the issue of unforeseen circumstances.
NEW JERSEY	Oppose	New jersey is in opposition of Ballot 5-2022. Based on our review of this matter this is an infrequent occurrence that will lock jurisdictions into an agreement that will result in an interest penalty being rendered due to another jurisdiction being untimely, which will not be beneficial for the timely jurisdiction. The Ballot does not consider unforeseen occurrences such as with COVID 19 or natural disasters that may cause a hiccup in timely submission of transmittal data. I believe this Ballot should be rewritten to focus on the jurisdiction that violates directly, and factor in considerations of what constitutes unforeseen circumstances that may cause a delay.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina generally supports this ballot. However, it remains concerned about how it is drafted. Currently, the language is in three distinct places. This is not necessary and problematic drafting. For example, it makes future amendments to this language more difficult as changes must be made, identically, in mulitple places. Otherwise, this can result in discrepancies, which could prove difficult to interpret or apply. The language should be stated once in the Articles of Agreement.
NORTH DAKOTA	Oppose
ONTARIO	Oppose
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	We are unsure the full impact from this ballot as it relates to prorated funding situations, which will trigger an interest calculation. There are a number of situations where a jurisdiction could end up having funds prorated – transpose figures on a payment, send Canadian funds for a US amount, misplace a decimal on a payment, or prepare a payment before ALL information is posted to the clearinghouse to mention a few. This is not to suggest interest is not warranted, only to acknowledge it is an onerous process and could happen more frequently than 3 times in 12 years.
QUEBEC	Oppose	- It is not clear whether the determination of the jurisdictions where sums are due is made before or after the compensation. The wording would have the merit of being clarified; -The process of collecting this interest is not clear. Does the jurisdiction that make the late payment have to pay the interest to the Clearinghouse, which will then forward it to the jurisdiction in question? Or does the jurisdiction that is late in payment have to write a cheque directly to the jurisdictions in question? Must the jurisdiction which has not received its payment within the date mentioned in the calendar, have to take recovery measures against the other jurisdiction in order to recover the interest? Can a jurisdiction waive interest owed to it? - The Ballot does not provide for any exception in case of delay due to forces majeure; - If a Canadian jurisdiction owes an amount to a U.S. jurisdiction and makes the late payment, is the interest rate to be used the Canadian or U.S. rate? Shouldn't this be specified in the Ballot to avoid confusion? We believe that the IFTA Clearinghouse Advisory Committee, sponsor of this ballot, should further explain the logistics behind it in order to get an idea of the efforts to be made. We would then be better able to position ourselves for or against. Finally, to echo some other jurisdictions, we believe that it is necessary to question the relevance of the addition of such interests. Three times in 12 years !
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose	The issue has only happened three times in twelve years. If it was an ongoing issue, then yes I would probably agree to it, but it doesn’t appear to be so (possibly could have occurred from system conversion?).
SASKATCHEWAN	Oppose
TENNESSEE	Oppose
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose
WYOMING	Oppose

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Support: 25
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	The existing language provides that after the Final Determination Finding of Non-Compliance the DRC must initiate a dispute. This language is absent in the proposed ballot. This could be problematic where the Rule does not place an obligation on the DRC to proceed with the dispute process. Specifically, the ballot only provides that the Final Determination Finding of Non-Compliance "shall be forwarded" the DRC.
ONTARIO	Support
QUEBEC	Support	The article R1555.200.020 is clear as to the outcome of the vote if it obtains 2/3 of the required affirmative votes but it's silent as to the outcome if the threshold is not reached. We believe this comment doesn't add anything and could be deleted.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support

Support: 15
Oppose: 5
Undecided: 5

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support	Generally, support the idea but there will need to be more details on how a jurisdiction would meet this goal and get an audit credit.
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports the ballot. The process of records reviews is in keeping with A100. A Records Review can help to ensure compliance with the IFTA through education, and is completed on behalf of all member jurisdictions. However, some of the requirement language might need some clarification: Line 33: ‘All accounts will be subject to a records review’. This appears as if all accounts must be review. Maybe a ‘may’ should replace the ‘will’. Line 83-84: Replace ‘IFTA Peer Review’ with the updated ‘Program Compliance Review’. Lines 92-93: Does this contradict lines 95-97? That section indicates that the records review is not intended to find noncompliant licensees.
Industry Advisory Committee		The IFTA IAC supports any effort to assist in educating carriers on reporting correctly. Record reviews allows a jurisdiction to review the process and fix issues with more carriers than the current audit process. The ultimate goal is compliance and this is a good way to help with driving compliance.
KANSAS	Support	Currently IRP allows the use of records reviews. Since we do both types of audits we have not used that process since it only deals with IRP. Having both organizations allowing records reviews will give us the opportunity to incorporate this into our audit program. It may only marginally help us with meeting our numbers as there is a certain amount of time required to do the documentation, make contact, etc. to get counted for an audit and it requires 3 to get credit for one. The effective date is January 1, 2021, are ballots usually retrospective? Line 33 of the ballot, second sentence. All accounts will be subject to a records review. To us that implies everyone is going to have one. I am thinking it should say can be subject to a records review. If the ballot passes then there should be education/promotion especially too the device providers and the carriers what the requirements are.
KENTUCKY	Undecided
MAINE	Oppose	We do not perform record reviews for IRP and do not believe a record review for a tax return is appropriate and do not see this as auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions. Update: A few jurisdictions that appear in favor of record reviews for IFTA refer to “new licensees”. This does not appear to be included in the current ballot language. As currently proposed a record review can be performed on a licensee that has been in IFTA for years. Is it the opinion of those judications that record reviews be performed only on new licensees? If so, what should the limitation be for new? 18 months?
MANITOBA	Support	Manitoba would be interested in receiving credits or partial credits for conducting IFTA Record Reviews on Licensees. While conducting IFTA audits on new Licensees, auditors have found that many of them have inadequate records and internal controls. We would welcome the opportunity to visit new Licensees (outside of an audit) to conduct a review of Licensees’ records and internal controls and provide recommendations for improvement and compliance. Also, if these reviews take less time than an audit, we would be able to review more new licensees than we do currently. In Manitoba, we currently conduct similar reviews of our new provincial sales tax registrants. They are contacted by our compliance unit, and are provided with general remittance information and recommendations on proper tax remittance procedures. These compliance reviews are typically well-received by registrants.
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Oppose
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Oppose	Nothing explains what is required to get an audit credit for a record review, what is considered education? How many records reviews equals an audit? How will this be monitored? Will the other jurisdictions be looking out for other States interests in a record review? Seems like a way to get out of doing actual audits.
NEBRASKA	Undecided	While we support the records review process and the flexibility it affords jurisdictions in acheiving their audit count, we have one concern. A510 .400 states that completing a records review does not preclude the jurs. from conducting an audit on that specified period. While the very next sentence states the intent of a records review is to educate and should not be used to convert a records review to an audit due to poor records. We would be more inclined to support the ballot with the withdrawl of A510.400. If a records review indicates poor records, the carrier should be given notice to correct their system. A later audit could be scheduled covering a different period. We also noted the effective date of 1-1-21 - is that a typo?
NEVADA	Undecided	There are a few areas of concern. First, why list A240 in new section A510.100.005 is section A510.300 says otherwise? Second, if serious deficiencies are found, tax adjustments should occur ensure all taxes are being properly paid to all member jurisdictions. This carrier could require an audit to determine deficiencies and should occur sooner than later and not require a seperate engagement by jurisdiction. Third, we are not sure if up to 25% of audit count be allowed on these records reviews. That seems very high and could cause problems for jurisdictions who are using audit staff to complete these reviews to maintain the 3%. If trying to seperate the records reviews from audits, the language should be written to allow reviews to be completed by non-audit staff only and only during first year. A better seperatation is needed.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	New Brunswick does not feel that a records review provides the same level of protection as an audit.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided	New Hampshire would like clarfication. If you perform three record reviews would it count towards any audit? It appears that is the intention. New Hampshire could support this if it was not applied to the required low mileage percent (15%) and required high mileage ppercent (25%) audits. .
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	North Carolina has significant concerns with substituting audits for a review of a taxpayer's system of record and internal controls. Although a jurisdiction may substitute three "Records Reviews" for one audit, North Carolina does not consider a "Records Review," as provided in the ballot, a reasonable substitute for an audit. This evaluation was based, in part, on the following characteristics of a "Records Review": (1) The Review prohibits the review of IFTA records maintained by the licensee. (2) Regardless of how inadequate a jurisdiction may find a licensee's system of record and internal controls, a Review may not be converted into an audit or result in a tax assessment. It further provides that the review "is not intended to find noncompliant Licensees for audit." (3) Upon finding inadequate system of record and controls, a jurisdiction is only "strongly recommended that the base jurisdiction conduct a follow up contact with the Licensee . . . ."
ONTARIO	Support	ON strongly supports the concept of the proposal. It is taking a proactive stance by focusing on early education in a more modern approach to encourage early compliance rather than relying solely on post-activity audits. This is a balanced methodology ensuring that a substantial number of traditional audits are still a significant requirement but also considers the potentially limited or constrained resources affecting jurisdictions. We also question the retrospective effective date as noted by Kansas – if this was intentional, a prospective date is more practical for ease of application.
QUEBEC	Support	We agree with this ballot as long as it's on a voluntary basis. However, the question is how many visits to obtain one audit file ?
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Would like to see some more rigger around books and records, what is required, oversight on records reviews for other jurisdictions, and what is expected of the record review. 25% is a high percentage to adjust audits by.
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	South Dakota believes this will be a way for the IFTA team to work with new carriers to educate and verify that they are keeping adequet records. The 3 reviews per audit is a way for some jurisdictions to help with audit requirements. This also does not count toward any numbers for the high and low milage requirements. We strongly urge all jurisdictions to carefully consider how this review process could help them gain further compliance in the IFTA reporting.
TEXAS	Support	Texas believes that there should be a limit on the number of IFTA record reviews that would be allowed for credit for each State. Audits are the primary means of reallocating funds to the rightful States. A records review would not accomplish this and if too many record reviews are performed, some states may end up losing this revenue.
WASHINGTON	Support	Generally support; audit staff reviewing still and may provide comment second round.

Support: 15
Oppose: 3
Undecided: 7

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	failure to vote should be counted as an abstension and not a "no" vote
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support	Support stream lining the process for the ballot process
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support	Indiana, in general, supports IFTA Ballot #3-2021; however, some language modification is requested. We recommend that days for the comment period, voting period, drafts, etc., listed throughout this proposed ballot for Agreement modifications should indicate business or calendar days. (IRP has used calendars; proposed amened sections - R1610; R1620; R1625; or where else relevant) R1605. Although the term “minor edits” is used to provide for the Board of Trustees to make edits to Agreement, Procedures Manual and/or Audit Manual the determination of what may be a minor edit, could be a material edit (such as format and minor grammatical efforts). The provision should be restated as to what are the only or limited changed items that can be made by the repository. Edits should be limited only for typos, title, font, format, spelling errors, incorrect reference sections. The word “etc.” should be removed due to broadness and undefined items. Any change in content outside of what is specifically set forth/approved to be changed would require membership approval. Otherwise, the term “minor edits” needs to be better defined
Industry Advisory Committee		The IFTA IAC has some concerns with this ballot. The current language explains what is considered a minor edits, but equally important, the ballot should do a better job at describing a substantial edit. Grammatical corrections could have unintended consequences in affecting the intent of the language of the Articles of Agreement. It should also be noted that this ballot does not fix the true issue with the ballot process and that is 100% participation in voting. There should be ramifications for a Jurisdiction not voting; full participation in voting is essential in getting thing done.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Oppose	Maine agrees with PEI’s comments and makes the following suggestions. The first comment period should stay at 45 days. The longer comment period will allow jurisdictions to seek attorney input. No votes on amendments should be taken during the open meeting. The final ballot should be submitted to the repository x days after the close of the open meeting for vote regardless if a 2nd comment period is held. The vote on all ballots should start at the same time so the effective dates would be the same. This would streamline the updates to the guiding documents
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Undecided	Although Maryland appreciates the proposed streamlining to a single ballot process, we have concerns relative to the reduced number of days for additional actions.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEBRASKA	Oppose	As written, Nebraska cannot support this ballot. We do, however, support the idea of simplfying the ballot process by the elimination of the short track/ full track system with a ballot process and shortening the time period for comments Reading through the ballot we had lots of questions - We understand the appeal of the Submission of Preliminary Edits for Board Review concept, but is still subjective and allows the repository to decide what is minor and what is not. We haven't yet run this by our legal team, but I cannot imagine them accepting that language. It is not clear how the decision is made to vote on a ballot at the annual meeting and when not to? Who makes that decision? In general we are not in favor of ballots being voted on for passage at the annual meeting. Our suggestion is to propose a simpler ballot that deals with the main two issues, elimination of the short track/full track process and shortening some of the time frames. Once that is implemented, then work on other changes if necessary.
NEVADA	Undecided
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support	New Brunswick supports this ballot; however, we would recommend that section R1605 - 100 be separated into two sections, “Board of trustee” and “The membership”.
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolina has concerns regarding the potential for unintended consequences regarding "preliminary edits" to the Article of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual. These edits can include typos, title, font, format, minor grammatical edits, incorrect reference sections. Edits to address typographical errors, changes to grammar, and changing section references, by their nature, have a high potential to change the meaning of what is written. In many instances "preliminary edits" would not be worth seeking or otherwise be desirable unless it made a requirement or process more clear. Implicit in a change for clarity is that a specific interpretation of a text is now more likely than another interpretation. Therefore, by design, these edits are vehicles to change the content of the document. Further, making any changes to the Article of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual should be taken with great care and provide for sufficient review by all Jurisdictions. Although not completely alleviating all of North Carolina's concerns, we encourage the Agreement Procedures Committee to review the attached document, which provides sample language. The sample language replaces terms that provide minimal restrictions on what could be changed (e.g. the ballot's use of "etc." and the reference that the changes "should not change to content"), adds the ability for a jurisdiction to object to the change, and clarifies that a vote by the Board of Trustees must be unanimous. North Carolina also shares the concerns raised by Prince Edward Island. Consistent usage of "three-fourths affirmative vote of the total eligible member jurisdictions" is needed to avoid any confusion. Also, consider revising the first sentence in R1635.100 -- it reads as though one can vote on roll calls. Ballot Changes
ONTARIO	Undecided	ON has significant reservations with the elements beyond a straightforward consolidation and agree with the concerns also noted by several jurisdictions. It would be preferable and allow for greater clarity if the sponsors were to isolate the additional, expanded aspects and present as a separate ballot. While there is a definite benefit in eliminating the two ballot streams, the value with the extensive amendment provisions is questionable.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	R1615 lacks clarity that it is limited to Preliminary Ballot Proposals. It seems to allow the agreement to be changed based on 3/4ths of those in attendance at an “open meeting.” That open meeting is not necessarily the annual meeting. R1620 somewhat conflicts with R1615 in that R1615 allows for 3/4ths of those in attendance while R1620 refers to those that do not receive 3/4ths affirmative of total eligible member jurisdictions. R1620.400 reads that ballots not receiving 3/4ths affirmative at the open meeting and not needing a second comment period will be voted on during the annual meeting. It is unclear who or how the decision of a second comment period is made – unless the R1615 vote is: proceed? yes/no; and if yes a second vote of: open to comments? yes/no. R1620.400 appears to suggest Final Ballot Proposals will be voted on during the annual meeting. That being the case it should be clarified that the 3/4ths affirmative votes are 3/4ths of all eligible jurisdictions, not just 3/4ths of those in attendance. It is also worth recognizing votes at annual meetings may have fewer “Commissioners” voting than votes done electronically as there are a number of Assistant Commissioners and delegates at the annual meeting.
QUEBEC	Undecided	From a legal point of view; We agree with simplifying the voting process. As for the minor tweaks, we see that the list includes the "Titles". The title is one of the elements that make a law and can be used to interpret it when it is unclear. Thus, we can't endorse a change that allows the Board to change the headings as if they were minor change of the same nature as a grammatical error. A typo error has slipped into the article R1610.200. The "to" following the addition of "will" should be removed.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided

Support: 8
Oppose: 5
Undecided: 10

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Undecided	CA is undecided at this time; we generally support the idea/concept and efforts behind the ballot. Strongly support any language that will clarify the reporting requirement to have the data logs in an CVS (XLS), or Delimited text file format. We find having to work with static images like a PDF data file to be very time consuming for audit staff.
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Undecided	Indiana is undecided on ballot 4-2021. While we agree with the premise of the ballot, some items need revision. For example, we find the sentence on lines 37-38 to be an overreach. Requiring the licensee’s system be capable of generating daily summaries for each truck in the fleet is an unnecessary burden to place on the licensee. We realize the language does not require that the licensee generate the daily summaries, but must have the capability to. This is essentially a requirement that they generate them at the time of reporting, in the event the licensee happens to change GPS providers in the future. Should the licensee discontinue its relationship with the provider, they lose the capability of generating the daily summaries in the event of an audit at a later date.
Industry Advisory Committee	Oppose	The IFTA IAC cannot support the ballot as written. The purpose of the working was to define what is needed to be in compliance with all electronic reporting and to make the process more clear. The current language does not make it clearer and adds additional burden to the carrier: 1. Daily odometers- if odometers are not pulled from ECM; monthly odometers, or any time frame, would work equally as well. 2. Nowhere in the Article of Agreement does it call for daily summaries, so why would they be needed for GPS reporting The current ballot language only covers vehicles that utilize latitudes and longitudes that interface with a distance program. There are other types of systems that utilizes GPS Data that does not interface with a distance program and equally effective, i.e. GEO FENCING. This ballot greatly narrows the use of GPS systems that work differently.
KANSAS	Undecided
KENTUCKY	Undecided
MAINE	Oppose	We understand amendments are needed to vehicle tracking systems record keeping requirements and applaud the working group’s efforts. A reference to proposed section P540.200 covering the format of the data should be made in section P530 third paragraph. The current language provides guidance for multiple types of vehicle tracking systems and the proposed language only provides guidance for vehicle tracking systems using latitudes and longitudes that interface with a distance program. Perhaps a section should be used for the proposed language P540.300 and the current language amended to cover other vehicle tracking systems P540.200. We have concerns that a 15-minute interval in created records is not sufficient for the northeast. Suggest adding the requirement of a jurisdictional distance between readings to the four required data elements. We believe that with this added as a data set the requirement of daily summaries would not be needed as the auditing jurisdiction could create any time frame summary to test towards. In general, we would create a pivot table for the month and check that to the current requirement of a monthly summary by vehicle. Summaries under sections P560 should be a requirement. Current wording makes it a requirement that an auditing jurisdiction give “due notice” to receive summaries. Should there be a preamble as to the reason the information is required. “The information required for vehicle tracking systems is to be both sufficient and appropriate to allow an auditing jurisdiction to determine the completeness and accuracy of distance calculated per jurisdiction as reported by the licensee.” As a side note, most carriers using a vehicle tracking system have no idea how they work and would not know what information is required.
MANITOBA	Oppose	Manitoba agrees with Missouri's comments.
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support	Michigan supports this ballot with one change to the current ballot purposed language - on page 3, line 37, it currently states - The system should be capable of generating a daily summary that reflects the distance per 38 jurisdiction, for each vehicle, when requested for audit purposes. Michigan would like the change to the following statment - The system must be capable of generating a daily summary that reflects the distance per 38 jurisdiction, for each vehicle, when requested for audit purposes
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Minnesota has concerns with this ballot pertaining to the information that has been removed in P540 .200. Instead of removing the items in this section Minnesota would like the authors to consider Section .200 be left as currently written. Minnesota proposes that everything written in red in .200 be moved to its own sub-section. In addition, Minnesota suggests that .035 and .040 be included in the new sub-section under “GPS” so it can be located in both sections. Line 37- Daily Summary. Minnesota would like the authors to consider it to read as follows: “The system must be capable of generating a summary per trip or day, whichever is greater. That reflects the distance per jurisdiction, for each vehicle, when requested for audit purposes.”
MISSOURI	Oppose	With the advancements in technology coming so rapidly, to “tightly define” what is acceptable seems to be a burden to the carriers. We get PDF documents, which would not be acceptable, from carriers and can convert them to Excel. So to exclude PDF documents from being acceptable doesn’t seem right to us. A new and better format may come along that wouldn’t be considered acceptable because of the tightly defined parameters.
NEBRASKA	Support	The research and work the Working Group did supports the changes. Nebraska would support the change of Monthly manual odometer readings instead of daily odometer readings when the ECM odometer readings are not captured in the pings.
NEVADA	Undecided	Two areas of concern. First, will the 15 minutes per lat/long provide enough information for an accurate route? Were there any studies comparing various timing of the pings? Should we have more information on Route of Travel? Second, don't have a warm fuzzy feeling on "the system should be capable of generating a daily summary...". This is very gray and could lead to a higher rate of non-compliance audits being issued. I'm also concerned about summaries being daily which then might not allow an auditor to match up to trips when a trip is in progress at the end of the day, especially when that day is the last day of a tax return period. We need to have records that will mirror that period that was reported on the return. At this point I am not sure if this will happen. Might need to add additional language that if running on these electronic records, there shall not be any deviation from calendar date and time of a tax return reporting period.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided
NEWFOUNDLAND	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	(1) Line 37 -- The language currently uses "should." If it is a requirement, use mandatory language such as shall or must. If it is not a requirement, it should be removed. (2) Lines 37-43 -- These need to be denoted within a subsection or subsections. (3) The commentary should not be placed as commentary inside the ballot. This content needs to move into the ballot language itself. (4) Word is neither a static image nor a format. Consider revising to be consistent with the other items listed (e.g. PDF and JPEG).
ONTARIO	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Unsure about all carriers system capabilities and if/how to transition industry and the burden/education for the client for requiring a system that will produce electronic documentation. We agree that electronic records should be required upon a carrier having the capability to do so.
Stakeholders		ATA opposes this proposed ballot in its current form. While ATA believes this ballot is well-intended, there are potential unintended and unforeseen consequences that necessitate a deeper review. The proposed language overly narrows the scope of technologies- both current and future- that would be applicable and acceptable under current language. Additionally, it may be worth exploring, before proposing an actual amendment, what the rationale is for some of these changes. New phrases in the proposed language lack underpinning definitions, which may lead to confusion as currently drafted. For example, providing examples of "acceptable" formats, as well as examples of "unacceptable" formats, does not define the term for another format not specified. Examples, in and of themselves, are not definitions and should not be treated as such. It is also unclear how these changes would mesh with other related sections on adequacy of records. In looking to "tightly define", the committee should be careful to not forestall the ability of the language to adapt to the needs of both carriers and states.
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Washington is undecided at this time; we generally support the premise and efforts but need mroe time to dig into the language and assess impacts.

Support: 17
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #1 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Oppose	We do not believe the removal of the membership vote required by section R1555.300.005 before the PCRC takes a member to the DRC is a good move. Keep in mind that the PCRC reviews for all member jurisdictions. Regardless of the reason a jurisdiction is taken before the DRC it could result in expulsion R1555.400. If a State is expelled it cannot collect fuel tax. The following is from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 “after September 30, 1996, no State shall establish, maintain, or enforce any law or regulation which provides for the payment of a fuel use tax unless such law or regulation is in conformity with the International Fuel Tax Agreement with respect to collection of such a tax by a single base State and proportional sharing of such taxes charged among the State where a commercial vehicle is operated”.
MANITOBA	Support
MISSOURI	Oppose
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina raises the following two issues that it would like the sponsor to respond to or otherwise address: (1) whether the ballot intended to place an administrative duty on the Executive Director of IFTA, Inc.; and (2) whether the ballot intended to reference the Report and Follow Up Procedures generally when it struck reference to the reassessment. First, R1555.200 provides that the finding shall be forwarded to the DRC and a copy to the "Executive Director of IFTA, Inc. for notification to all member jurisdictions." This is phrased as if the Executive Director is to perform the notification. Did the sponsor intend to place a duty on the Executive Director to distribute the finding to the member jurisdictions or did the sponsor intend that the Executive Director receive a copy of the finding along with the member jurisdictions? It may be more consistent within the roles of the Executive Director and the repository to assign the distribution duty to the repository. The repository can then distribute the finding to both the Executive Director and the member jurisdictions. Second, the ballot removes, twice, reference to the reassessment. The resulting ballot language focuses on whether the "follow-up has been completed." North Carolina is seeking clarification on whether the sponsor intended to reference entire process related to the follow-up procedures. The IFTA Program Compliance Review Guide references both the "Report and Follow Up Procedures" and the "Follow Up and Reassessment Process." It appears that the Report and Follow Up Procedures include what is separately delineated into the follow-up process and the reassessment process. If the ballot's reference is to the process generally, it may be more clear for the ballot to reference completion of either the: (1) "Report and Follow Up Procedures"; or (2) "Follow Up and Reassessment Process." Alternatively, the sponsor could also consider striking all reference to follow-up and reassessment altogether. The process currently integrates the issuance of the Final Determination Finding of Non-Compliance within the process itself. Therefore, reference to the "Follow Up Procedures" or the "Follow Up and Reassessment Process" is unnecessary. North Carolina understands that the Guide can be amended at any time and the questions are based on the current document maintained by the Program Compliance Review Committee.
ONTARIO	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 8
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Oppose	Unsure how these would be counted and/or reviewed by other jurisdictions.
MAINE	Oppose	We do give the carrier many opportunities to learn from us the record keeping requirements. We do not perform record reviews for IRP and do not believe a record review for a tax return is appropriate and do not see this as auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions. It appears this ballot would allow a record review to be conducted on a carrier audited in the past.
MANITOBA	Support
MISSOURI	Oppose	Nothing explains what is required to get an audit credit for a record review, what is considered education? How many record reviews equal an audit? How will this be monitored?
NEVADA	Oppose	records review should be allowed to convert to audit and assessment. our job is to protect fuel tax revenue and if reveals underreporting of tax, the assessment must occur
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	New Brunswick does not feel that a records review provides the same level of control as an audit. Records could be accurate but not properly utilized for filling. NB does an educational visit with every new account.
NEWFOUNDLAND	Oppose	In the opinion of NL, these reviews should be limited to new licensees for educational purposes, with other licensees subject to the normal audit process. Also, the existence of a review should not preclude the ability of a jurisidction to raise an assessment when non-compliance is identified. Current legislation in NL requires the issuance of an assessment when it appears from an examination of books and records that a taxpayer has failed to pay tax due as required under the legislation.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	North Carolina's opposition to this ballot remains steadfast. The changes made to the ballot reinforce North Carolina's concerns that this is not an effective means to ensure compliance with IFTA. Substituting audits for a review of a taxpayer's system of record and internal controls is imprudent. Although a jurisdiction may substitute three "Records Reviews" for one audit, North Carolina does not consider a "Records Review," as provided in the ballot, a reasonable substitute for an audit. This evaluation was based, in part, on the following characteristics of a "Records Review": (1) It is not clear whether a Review precludes a jurisdiction from reviewing return information to evaluate the system of record. The ballot language states that a Review "cannot compare records to a quarterly tax return to determine adjustments." Thus, can a Review use return data for other purposes, such as to evaluate the system of Record? Assessing the accuracy of the returns by using the records maintained by the Licensee can be valuable in effectively assessing the system of record. (2) Regardless of how inadequate a jurisdiction may find a licensee's system of record and internal controls, a Review may not be converted into an audit or result in a tax assessment. Not only is a Review designed not "to find noncompliant Licensees for audit" but the ballot creates Licensees who are immune to an assessment for at least 180 days after completion of the review. This is a dangerous precedent and may result in return periods that cannot be audited because of the ever-ticking-clock of the statute of limitations. (3) The ballot language fails to hold the jurisdiction accountable for finding deficiencies. Upon finding inadequate system of record and controls, a jurisdiction is only "strongly recommended that the base jurisdiction conduct a follow up contact with the Licensee . . . ." By making a follow-up a "recommendation" instead of a requirement, the value of a "Records Review" decreases substantially in comparison to an audit. (4) It is important to note that nothing in the ballot creates a clear distinction between a "Records Review" and a follow-up to a "Records Review." Therefore, nothing prevents a jurisdiction from 'double-dipping' by counting the follow-up review as a distinct, separate "Record Review." This potential strategy, again, further devaluates a Review. (5) There is no reason to limit the scope of a Review as provided in the ballot. The new language provides that an audit "will be limited in scope to less than a full Reporting Period." This limitation is incomprehensible and is inconsistent with the scope of the evaluation established in A320, which is incorporated in the ballot. How is a jurisdiction to determine what fraction of a reporting period to use? How would the 180 day audit immunity period apply to a part of a reporting period? If a jurisdiction is allowed to use a quarterly tax return to evaluate the system of record, how is that possible if the review must be limited to less than a reporting period? (6) The ballot states that "Reviews may be conducted by personnel processing Licensee applications . . . " This provision further devaluates Reviews as compared to audits. It is not reasonable to assume that auditors and persons processing applications can equally and effectively evaluate internal controls of a complex system. There is no reason to believe that there is an existing overlapping skill set held by these groups of persons for evaluating a system of record. Documenting the existence of internal controls, reviewing and testing the reliability of the Licensee’s internal controls, and identifying strengths and weaknesses in distance and fuel accounting systems are complex tasks. There is a high risk that the personnel processing Licensee applications cannot perform the same level of review that an auditor is capable of performing. Although significant training can reduce this capability gap, the risk remains.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Would like to see more rigor around the books and records review in regard to oversight and what is required in order to count as a records review. 25% seems like a high amount to adjust audits by.

Support: 17
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	R1620.300.015. Suggest 30 day voting period instead of 45 days.	R1620.300.015. Suggest 30 day voting period instead of 45 days.
ALBERTA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MISSOURI	Oppose	Support 45 days in lieu of 30 days to ensure all parties within our organization have fully reviewed any language changes.	Support 45 days in lieu of 30 days to ensure all parties within our organization have fully reviewed any language changes.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support	New Brunswick supports this ballot; however, we would recommend that section R1605 - 100 be separated into two sections, “Board of trustee” and “The membership”.	New Brunswick supports this ballot; however, we would recommend that section R1605 - 100 be separated into two sections, “Board of trustee” and “The membership”.
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina concurs with Prince Edward Island's comments. North Carolina does not have any objections to extending the review period to 45 days. North Carolina's remaining comments are limited to R1625. In the proposed R1625, it is unclear whether (and how) amendments can be made to a ballot during an open meeting of the commissioners. It is important to note that the vote occurs after one comment period. To incorporate any changes from the comment period, amendments must occur or be presented during the open meeting. The current language does not grant the sponsor clear authority to amend the ballot during the meeting and does not give clear guidance on how this is to occur. Also, given the current language of R1625, it is unclear how two jurisdictions are to indicate, in their opinion, that a change is a substantive change -- which prevents the vote from moving forward in the open meeting. When we make changes to how we can change the foundational documents that govern all of our interactions, we should make them as clear as possible. Leaving issues open to interpretations or requiring IFTA Inc. and jurisdictions to fill-in-the-gaps should be avoided where possible. North Carolina believes that clarifying this process is consistent with the charge given to the Agreement Procedures Committee. One of the primary purposes of the ballot change was to ensure that a ballot could be voted on during the open meeting and have a reasonable opportunity to pass. Ensuring that amendments can be made after the one comment period is important aspect in increasing the probability that a ballot can receive the 3/4 vote requirement to pass. To assist the Agreement Procedures Committee, North Carolina has prepared a document attempting to capture the changes proposed by Prince Edward Island. North Carolina has also included a possible clarification to R1625. The second level of changes (changes to the ballot) have been highlighted in yellow. See the following for the referenced attachment: https://www.iftach.org/forums/upload/temp/FTPBP%2003-2021%20Supplement.pdf	North Carolina concurs with Prince Edward Island's comments. North Carolina does not have any objections to extending the review period to 45 days. North Carolina's remaining comments are limited to R1625. In the proposed R1625, it is unclear whether (and how) amendments can be made to a ballot during an open meeting of the commissioners. It is important to note that the vote occurs after one comment period. To incorporate any changes from the comment period, amendments must occur or be presented during the open meeting. The current language does not grant the sponsor clear authority to amend the ballot during the meeting and does not give clear guidance on how this is to occur. Also, given the current language of R1625, it is unclear how two jurisdictions are to indicate, in their opinion, that a change is a substantive change -- which prevents the vote from moving forward in the open meeting. When we make changes to how we can change the foundational documents that govern all of our interactions, we should make them as clear as possible. Leaving issues open to interpretations or requiring IFTA Inc. and jurisdictions to fill-in-the-gaps should be avoided where possible. North Carolina believes that clarifying this process is consistent with the charge given to the Agreement Procedures Committee. One of the primary purposes of the ballot change was to ensure that a ballot could be voted on during the open meeting and have a reasonable opportunity to pass. Ensuring that amendments can be made after the one comment period is important aspect in increasing the probability that a ballot can receive the 3/4 vote requirement to pass. To assist the Agreement Procedures Committee, North Carolina has prepared a document attempting to capture the changes proposed by Prince Edward Island. North Carolina has also included a possible clarification to R1625. The second level of changes (changes to the ballot) have been highlighted in yellow. See the following for the referenced attachment: https://www.iftach.org/forums/upload/temp/FTPBP%2003-2021%20Supplement.pdf
ONTARIO	Support	Recommend keeping the 45 calendar day comment period and giving member jurisdictions 45 calendar days to review proposed edits through the new Board of Trustees Preliminary Edit Process so jurisdictions can give their full consideration when there are competing priorities for their time.	Recommend keeping the 45 calendar day comment period and giving member jurisdictions 45 calendar days to review proposed edits through the new Board of Trustees Preliminary Edit Process so jurisdictions can give their full consideration when there are competing priorities for their time.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support	As a non-substantive suggestion and to be consistent with other changes: R1610 .300 should be “the next open meeting of the commissioners” as opposed to “the next meeting of the member jurisdictions” As a non-substantive suggestion: R1630 .100 should be “Votes on amendments must be cast” as opposed to “Votes on amendments or interpretations must be cast” as interpretations are dealt with in section R1700 As a housekeeping suggestion: R1630 .400 should reference Section R1635 due to the renumbering from this ballot. Re “Eligible” jurisdictions: some of the language in R1630 reverses changes from FTFBP #1 – 2020 which comes into effect in January 2022. R1630 .200 and R1630 .300 should be “total eligible member jurisdictions” Perhaps not necessary but does add clarity, R1630 .100 could end with “commissioner of an eligible member jurisdiction” R1600 was not identified in FTFBP #1 – 2020 therefore does not need to be changed to “any eligible member jurisdiction”	As a non-substantive suggestion and to be consistent with other changes: R1610 .300 should be “the next open meeting of the commissioners” as opposed to “the next meeting of the member jurisdictions” As a non-substantive suggestion: R1630 .100 should be “Votes on amendments must be cast” as opposed to “Votes on amendments or interpretations must be cast” as interpretations are dealt with in section R1700 As a housekeeping suggestion: R1630 .400 should reference Section R1635 due to the renumbering from this ballot. Re “Eligible” jurisdictions: some of the language in R1630 reverses changes from FTFBP #1 – 2020 which comes into effect in January 2022. R1630 .200 and R1630 .300 should be “total eligible member jurisdictions” Perhaps not necessary but does add clarity, R1630 .100 could end with “commissioner of an eligible member jurisdiction” R1600 was not identified in FTFBP #1 – 2020 therefore does not need to be changed to “any eligible member jurisdiction”
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support	Supoort 45 days timeframe	Supoort 45 days timeframe
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support

Support: 17
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #5 - 2021

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	The passing of this ballot could result in the need to create new reports to be part of the audit report. The proposed effective date, January 1, 2022 is to soon to allow this to happen. If our calculation is correct voting would close on this short track ballot after the proposed effective date. I would suggest that the proposed effective date be January 1, 2023 or allow R1655 to determine the effective date.
MANITOBA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	It may be more clear to use the same language that is used in R930 by referencing the period as the “tax” reporting period. Therefore, consider the following revision: "All items listed below, except penalty .045, must be presented in the billing summary by tax reporting period." Also, the sponsor should take note of the typography (layout) of A460. It consists of the general description of the report type followed by the required elements. For example, A460.100 is presented as follows: ".100 General Information: .005 Name of base jurisdiction; .010 Auditor’s name; .015 Licensee’s name; . . . ." Therefore, more detailed requirements, such as how the billing information must be reported, may be more appropriate in the opening paragraph of A460.
ONTARIO	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

FTPBP #1 2020
STPBP #2 2020

Support: 12
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 16

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2020

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided	Generally support. A failure or refusal of an eligible member to cast a vote should not be considered a "no" vote
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided	Agree with sanctioned jurisdictions but uncertain of the value and whether appropriate to include: no commissioner named, or absent from ABM without a named voting delegate (i.e., the jurisdiction is still active member’s of IFTA). Is there anything which indicates these proposed changes would have changed the outcome of any past vote?
CALIFORNIA	Undecided	We understand the need for this ballot and jurisdiction eligibility appears to be tied to three factors: Active Status Named IFTA Commissioner Voting member or proxy at the ABM. CA agrees with the first two factors as you should not be part of the denominator if your Jurisdiction has lost voting rights or has no commissioner named to cast a vote in the time frame a vote is called. The question is if a jurisdiction doesn't have a voting member or proxy at the ABM are, they now considered noneligible and not part of the denominator on the ballots for that year? It seems the way the ballot is currently written it is a factor to determine the jurisdictional denominator and I do not see where it is limited to only the voting at the ABM. It is for this reason CA is undecided.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support	It is important to recognize the following: R1650 ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENTS .100. Votes on amendments or interpretations must be cast by the commissioner or a delegate named in writing by the commissioner. This ballot proposes to slide the “denominator” if a commissioner/proxy in not recognized by IFTA, Inc., or a jurisdiction is not otherwise eligible to vote (must be in good standing).
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports a ballot process that generates results based on the participation of member jurisdictions in good standing. We would prefer a change to 75% of the votes cast but the community has spoken on that concept. With that in mind we see this ballot as an improvment and support it.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Maine has the same concerns that Quebec and other jurisdictions have stated and believes the intent of this ballot would be better served by defining the denominator as those jurisdictions that have not lost their voting privileges.
MANITOBA	Undecided	Manitoba generally supports the intent of this ballot but needs clarification on the issues identified by other jurisdictions.
MARYLAND	Undecided	Maryland is undecided, and agrees with comments posted by Nevada
MINNESOTA	Undecided	Minnesota is undecided at this time based on the comments raised by Alabama and Nevada on the issue that a failure to vote is an automatic no vote and that is included in the denominator. Also agree that the comments from Quebec, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and North Carolina need to be clarified in the proposal to eliminate the potential for issues later on.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska shares the concern expressed by California. We would need to be assured that even though a member didn't have a proxy at the ABM that wouldn't prevent them from voting on ballots for the entire year. Additionally, we also don't disagree with comments from others regarding the issue of not voting equaling a no vote, but perhaps that could be addressed in a separate ballot.
NEVADA	Undecided	While NV agrees the percentage of votes needed should not include a member jurisdiction who's voting rights have been suspended or is otherwise not in good standing, NV also believes the percentage should not include jurisdictions who fail to vote. Automatically casting a "no" vote for a jurisdiction who for whatever reason fails to exercise their right to cast a vote, should be considered an "abstainment" and not counted in the denominator.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Undecided
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	Attached are some comments, questions and recommended edits to the proposed ballot. https://www.iftach.org/forums/upload/temp/FTPBP%201-2020.(JWP%20comments).pdf
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	Agree with PEI's comments and others as well.
ONTARIO	Support	ON fully supports the intent of the ballot however, believe there may be value in modifying by including the reference under R200 (DEFINITIONS) for greater clarity. This would also allow a defined “eligible member jurisdiction” to be cited for purposes other than R1600 amendments. It is questionable whether a Commissioner must be officially recognized by IFTA, Inc. as this implies a form of approval is required. It is the 58 provincial/state jurisdictions that are express parties to the Agreement, not the Commissioners. By virtue of R218, a Commissioner is identified by the respective jurisdictions to be responsible for local administration of the IFTA and by extension, speak on behalf of that government. We therefore propose the following as a definition An eligible member jurisdiction means the jurisdiction has: Recognized voting privileges and is in compliance with the terms of the Agreement, Appointed a Commissioner and identified the Commissioner to IFTA, Inc., and Named an alternate delegate by proxy if unable to participate in a vote and identified the delegate to IFTA, Inc.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	"eligible member" should be included in the definition section, somewhere around R220 rather than trying to define it within R1600. There is no mechanism for IFTA Inc to officially recognize a commissioner or delegate, borrowing the language in R1650.100 this could be Commissioner identified by the jurisdiction. Even better would be Commissioner, or delegate, identified by the jurisdiction. This second option covers the fact delegates are only a consideration for votes at the ABM. R1545 does not need to change if the definition includes "jurisdictions with active member status" Although R1545.300 requires compliance with the Agreement as a criteria for Active Membership; therefore, a jurisdiction found out of compliance by the DRC is not Active. It may be beneficial to include in the definition of Eligible Member language to the effect of "not currently found to be out of compliance by the Dispute Resolution Committee"
QUEBEC	Undecided	• Quebec is seeking clarification on the meaning of the words "officially recognized by IFTA, Inc. ", Which is added in article 1600 in connection with the presence of a commissioner or a voting delegate. It is our understanding that the IFTA Agreement does not provide for the recognition of the Commissioner or the Delegate. Is there such a procedure or would it rather be a discretionary power that these modifications would grant to IFTA Inc.? • Furthermore, the definition of "Eligible member jurisdiction" should be found in a general section of the Agreement and not in article R1600. Finally, article R1545.300 must be reviewed in the light of this new definition, possibly by deleting the last paragraph of R1545.300 and adding to the definition of "Eligible member jurisdiction" that it must be a jurisdiction “retaining active status as defined in R1545.300. " For these reasons Quebec is undecided.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
Stakeholders	Undecided	6/4/2020 Robert Pitcher, Consultant ATA ATA takes no position; however, if the details of the ballot aren’t clarified – see the other comments here – there could be controversy over close votes if the proposal is adopted.
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 28
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2020

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided	Unsure why other standing committees are not also being considered
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
COLORADO	Support	Colorado supports this ballot
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Undecided	Indiana is undecided on this ballot as currently written. We support the value of attorneys working together to train legal personnel from IFTA jurisdictions and facilitating cooperation between member jurisdictions on legal issues. In these areas they can act on behalf of their respective jurisdictions’ interests without conflict and to great benefit. But to go beyond this level of support may risk placing too much influence within one committee. Also, as the ballot states the IFTA Board of Trustees dissolved the Attorney Section Steering Committee. Indiana is not convinced that reversing a recent action of the Board is appropriate. Finally, all of the tasks that the sponsors of this ballot propose can be performed by attorneys without the establishment of a standing committee and the associated annual expenses.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support	If the membership is in support of moving the Attorney Committee to a standing Committee, NV will also support.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	Nova Scotia strongly supports ballot. The Attorney's committee has been in existence since I've been involved in IFTA (that dates back to 1997) and while I respect the Board's authority, as witnessed at the 2019 ABM, such a decision should have been discussed with the rest of the membership before hand.
ONTARIO	Support	ON is one of the sponsors of this ballot and encourage its support. The Attorneys’ Section Steering Committee (ASSC) has been relied upon for a number of years and likely an oversight that it was not designated as a standing committee. This is an opportunity to rectify the status and reinstate its successor, the Attorney Committee.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	PA supports the language of this ballot with respect to not including sanctioned members in the denominator, but not with respect to the other conditions.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support	Quebec urges the need to have an Attorney Committee as a standing committee. Also, we sponsored this ballot.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
Stakeholders	Oppose	6/4/2020 Robert Pitcher, Consultant ATA ATA opposes. This new committee is unnecessary. The IFTA Board knew what it was doing when it eliminated the ASSC.
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 4
Oppose: 10
Undecided: 3

1st Period Comments on STPBP #3 - 2020

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose	Alabama does not support the proposed ballot as it is currently written. Alabama is unwilling to cede its sovereign authority to determine tax rates, exemptions and exercise other substantive tax authority as specifically provided in the IFTA Articles of Agreement. The IFTA board of trustees should not have to bear this responsibility. It is suggested to authorize the board of trustees to propose an “emergency” ballot under the conditions identified in the current ballot proposal, and allow jurisdictions to vote on the measure in an expedited manner by setting aside the existing IFTA ballot provisions.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Oppose	BC is uncomfortable with the proposed changes giving too much power to the Board of Trustees and the potential to create confusion/conflict (e.g., IFTA changes a return due date but a jurisdiction disagrees/does not make a similar change). In addition, BC feels the ballot is too limiting in that it must be a national emergency in both the United States and Canada (e.g., these proposed changes could not be actioned if BC, WA, OR and CA were impacted by a significant earthquake). BC feels it would be much easier/appropriate to amend the Program Compliance Review sections to indicate that no compliance actions/consequences will be actioned against an IFTA jurisdiction found to be non-compliant as a result of an extended state of emergency by that jurisdiction.
IDAHO	Oppose	Agree with the comments provided by Alabama.
ILLINOIS	Oppose	Extend IFTA carrier tax return due dates -- NO Change due dates for jurisdictions to remit data and funds to the repository -- OK Change dates on which funds will be disbursed to jurisdictions by the repository --OK Allow extensions of other due dates, if deemed necessary -- Depends Temporarily reduce audit requirements --OK I believe all membership should have a chance to voice their perspective on their operations during national declarations via an expedited vote.
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MARYLAND	Support
NEVADA	Oppose	NV does not agree and will not give up its sovereign rights to collect fees and tax returns as they are due. The Board's decision to move the funds netting calendar during COVID without conferring with the Jurisdictions shows this is dangerous territory. IFTA has the authority to issue exemptions to an individual jurisdiction through its Program Compliance Reviews if a jurisdiction has an emergency or cannot meet the funds netting (or other) deadlines. Taxes due to the State of Nevada were not remitted timely due to the change in the funds netting calendar. This impacts our trends for forecasting and NV believe it is not in the spirit of the Agreement for the Board to make changes to tax return due dates or any other impacts to jurisdictional revenues.
NEW JERSEY	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	I would also suggest reconsidering the trigger to include situations where each and every jurisdiction is under a national or a provincial/state declared emergency. Currently there is no Canadian federal state of emergency; therefore, this amendment would not be applicable, yet this is the exact situation they are writing this for. The last time the Canadian federal gov’t declared a state of emergency was with the former War Measures Act (now the Emergency Act), back when Pierre Trudeau invoked it during the FLQ crisis (1970's) . I think wording that recognized federal and/or state/provincial state of emergency would be appropriate and I also believe there needs to be a 7-14 day implementation period.
ONTARIO	Oppose	ON does not support this ballot. We need to recognize that not all jurisdictions are willing or able to change key dates despite circumstances that may be exceptional. Secondly, as pointed out by NS, the government of Canada has not declared the COVID-19 to be a national emergency. Rather each province has imposed their individual measures unique to their jurisdiction. Consequently, even if the terms of this ballot were in effect, there would still not be the authority for the Board to make temporary amendments without jurisdictional approval.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	- "in some way... have the potential to impact" is an extremely low threshold for such powers. "Must have a significant impact" is a more reasonable limit. Both are subjective but the latter does lean toward situations that are critical. - Ideally, jurisdictions would be advised of pending changes before the board meets to allow us to advise our representative of potential impacts (7 days maybe).
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Oppose	Virginia does not support giving such extensive powers to the Board. We would be willing to consider processes for expediting member jurisdictions' authorization of waivers and/or extensions under certain conditions.
WASHINGTON	Oppose	Washington does not support this ballot as currently written. We agree with the creation of an emergency provision, but believe that the active voting jurisdictions should have a voting say in the matter - either initially prior to the proposed actions being authorized, or within a reasonable time thereafter to either affirm the board's actions or to deny them. Using the "National Emergency" language also has concerns since the United States has had some type of active National Emergency Declaration for all of recent memory (for example, the United States still has an active declared emergency that may meet the ballot's definition from November 14, 1979 - Executive Order #12170, or from September 14, 2001 - Proclamation #7463).
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose	Each state is set up differently and process returns differently. Most cannot adjust their systems instantly to change due dates and write off penalties and interest. It would become a manual process, which is happening now.

Support: 16
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on BYLAWS - 2020

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support	I support this ballot with the following language added in order to align the Clearinghouse Advisory Committee's language with the other current standing committee's language: The Chair shall select the committee members to serve on the Clearinghouse Advisory Committee, subject to approval by the Board.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	NC agrees with IL and ON in regard to the CAC Chair selecting their members and Article XV. Some other significant topics to consider addressing: -Article V-Section 5- remove reference to a FInancial Policy in the document; if that policy is changed, we effectively change the ByLaws by default -Article IV- Section 9- if a Commissioner fails to vote, ithey are presumed to have assented to the action ("yes"); a failure to vote should not be an affirmation; this is opposite of how an IFTA Commissioner non-vote is counted ("no") -usage of "shall" and "may" throughout the document needs to be considered as to the intent of its usage -NC has included an edited copy of the document with comments, changes and questions to be considered by the Board. NC supports the ballot overall but has suggested changes to the ballot as shown in the attached document. https://www.iftach.org/bulletins/NCDOR%20edits-%20Bylaw%20amendments%20FInal%20approved%204-14-2020%20mark-up.pdf
ONTARIO	Support	While the marked-up copy proposes a change to the last sentence on page 1, this has not been followed through. The edit suggests Article XIV is amended to XV however the final version still shows XIV. We agree with the IL comment and suggest standardized language be added for consistency with other committee terms. The intent being to allow the CAC Chair to initially select the committee members who are then subject to Board approval.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support	Agree with the amendment proposed by Illinois.

Support: 28
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2020

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MASSACHUSETTS	Undecided	Greetings, I clearly understand the frustration of a ballot not getting the "44 Votes" needed for passage, as many good ballots over the years have been victimized by NO's cast for a jurisdcition not voting at all. I clearly understand the denominator not always being 58, I get that. It is the language that has me concerned/confused. "Eligible Member Jurisdcitions" and "With Voting Privileges" has me wondering... Clarify for me please, when NJ was not voting for a couple of years, was the denominator not 57?? or was their non-voting a "No Vote"..? If (5) Commish's fail to vote for a ballot and the denominator becomes 53 and the magic votes of yes's needed goes to 40, instead of 44. That's what we are after with this ballot......right? We want the failure to vote ..., to not be counted as a "No Vote"....isnt that our end game goal?
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolina generally agrees with the intent of the what the ballot is trying to achieve but has concerns regarding the language used to get there. Our primary concerns are with the definition of "Eligible Member Jurisdiction." Where this definition affects the right to vote, the definition must be clear and concrete; deficiencies in this definition may affect the outcome of our vote. We discuss our concerns regarding this definition in the text below. We have also provided recommended changes in the link below. The document addresses our concerns with the definition and provides additional tweaks and fixes that we believe would improve the ballot generally. We identify four concerns with the definition of eligible member jurisdiction. First, the definition provides that an eligible member jurisdiction is one "with active membership status not being found out of compliance . . . " As used here, "being found out of compliance" does not account for a jurisdiction that was previously found out of compliance but subsequently comes into compliance. In other words, “being found out of compliance” can be subsequently cured and voting rights restored if previously revoked. Further, a jurisdiction can be found out of compliance but not have its voting rights revoked (e.g. the PCRC finds non-compliance but fails the 2/3 vote to initiate the dispute). Second, the jurisdiction's voting rights are conditioned on a commissioner or delegate be recognized by IFTA, Inc. Where applying this provision could effectively treat a jurisdiction as if it does not exist, the procedure for naming a Commissioner should be provided in the Agreement if referring to a formal recognition by IFTA, Inc. The procedure appears to be provided under the "Intent" section of the ballot. This language should be incorporated into the Agreement itself. If this language is incorporated, additional considerations will have to be made to ensure consistency between formal recognition by IFTA Inc. and Sections R218 (defining Commissioner), R1555.300 (delegate's ability to vote), R1650.100 (delegate's ability to vote). Requiring formal recognition by IFTA Inc. may impact these Sections. Third, the use of “with voting privileges” tagged at the end of the sentence in R220 should be clarified. We understand the intent of the phrase is to ensure that the delegate has been granted voting privileges from the Commissioner, who then has notified IFTA, Inc. of this delegated power. Where the referent "delegate" is in a parenthetical, the purpose of this phrase becomes less clear. Finally, the definition has three criteria that must be met before a jurisdiction becomes an eligible member jurisdiction. These concepts should be separated to improve clarity. Please see the following link regarding other comments: https://www.iftach.org/forums/upload/temp/NC%20response-%20FTPBP%201-2020%20for%202nd%20Comment%20Period.docx
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	ON continues to support this ballot.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 25
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #2 - 2020

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
COLORADO	Support
IDAHO	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	NC supports this ballot. Please see the attachment for suggested changes to the verbiage for more clarity. https://www.iftach.org/forums/upload/temp/STPBP%202-2020%20comments.docx
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	I strongly support this ballot and believe the IFTA jurisdicitons are well served by this committee and the advice they have provided to us over the years.. I've been involved with IFTA since 1996 and I can't think of a time where we ever contemplated not having this committee
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	Saskatchewan strongly supports this ballot.
TENNESSEE	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WYOMING	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

FTPBP #1 2019

FTPBP #1 2019

Support: 21
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 1

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2019

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	Support one report with all information. It would be nice if the requested information could be amended, when necessary, without a ballot.
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
KANSAS	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Nebraska has no particular problems/issues with the ballot, but does offer the following comments to the APC for their consideration. Correct the "Sections to be Amended" portion of the ballot. It currently states that the ballot is amending the Aricles of Agreement but the ballot is actually proposing amendments to the Procedures Manual. Under .300 General , .055 - Remove the reference to audit payments and, if needed, ask the electronic audit payments question under .400 Audit. Under .400 Audit .020 and .055 - Consider moving both of these to .300 General as they are not specific to Audit. Under .400 Audit - Consider capturing information related to Inadequate Audits. If this information is going to be requested by the PCRC, it would make sense to ask for numbers on the Annual Report. Regarding the question of how to make changes to the annual report requirements without a ballot we looked at what IRP does. In IRP, The Plan only states that each jurs. shall submit the annual report by March 1 and defers the information required to an Appendix which can be amended without ballot. (I am told that the information in the appendix must be a requirement of The Plan.) However, the current appendix only asks for 12 pieces of information while this ballot as written asks for 27 (i think).
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	New Brunswick agrees that information sharing amongst the jurisdictions is of great importance and that the majority of the information identified in the ballot would be beneficial from a reference perspective. However, we feel that embedding additional specific questions within the mandatory annual report may present a problem on a go forward basis. As other jurisdictions have mentioned, each time more information is sought or perhaps no longer required, a ballot would be needed in order to make these modifications to the agreement.
NEW MEXICO	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario supports the ballot proposal in general with a few comments: 300 .005 Jurisdictions FEIN: This is a US identification number. It is not applicable to Canadian jurisdictions and Canadian members won’t be able to provide this information in the annual reporting. What is the purpose/intended use of this information by IFTA? 400 .020 and.025 (any other motor carrier fuel tax or mileage tax licensing) Please clarify the purpose and intended use of the information requested? Would a federal tax be applicable under .020? .055 Service Stations located on Indian Reservations Ontario will not be able to comply with this requirement. We don’t have the information required. In addition, please change all “state tax” to “jurisdictional tax” as the IFTA members include both American and Canadian Jurisdictions.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support	The wording in .400 .055 could be changed from "... not collecting state fuel tax." to "... not collecting state/provincial fuel tax.", or "... not collecting jurisdicational fuel tax."
QUEBEC	Undecided	Quebec agrees on merging all reports into one annual report. We have same questions as our colleague in Ontario: 300 .005 Jurisdictions FEIN: This is a US identification number. It is not applicable to Canadian jurisdictions and Canadian members won’t be able to provide this information in the annual reporting. What is the purpose/intended use of this information by IFTA? 400 .020 and.025 (any other motor carrier fuel tax or mileage tax licensing) Please clarify the purpose and intended use of the information requested? .055 Service Stations located on Indian Reservations Quebec will not be able to comply with this requirement.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
UTAH	Support	Utah routinely updates the exemptions database with the annual report each year anyway. This could be a good thing as it can be frustrating when we don't have a clear answer on another jurisdiction's fuel or distance exemptions.
VIRGINIA	Support	We support a single report, and agree with Alabama that ideally a ballot should not be required to change the information to be reported.
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	WV has no opposition to consolidating into one report.
WISCONSIN	Support	Wisconsin supports regardless but has interest in following changes: Removal of: .400 Required Information - Audit .060 What is your official source of mileage (distance) used to conduct audits? REASONING: Against general jurisdictional policy to publicly support a specific vendor. .055 Identify the service stations located on Indian Reservations in your jurisdiction that are not collecting state fuel tax. REASONING: Unsure we could provide this information. Addition of: .400 Required Information - Audit .006 Total auditor hours REASONING: We believe this would benefit jurisdictional knowledge of best practices (efficiency) with respect to audit processing when looking at accounts audited and total hours expended.

Support: 33
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 2

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2019

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	Alabama supports proposed procedures to require jurisdictions to update their information
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
FLORIDA	Support	We support but offer the following comments: The questions concerning online services for IFTA do not provide for the scenarios we have, so this requirement should include a comments section. Subsection .090 is not needed, since IFTA Articles of Agreement section R1000.100, allows credit for tax paid purchases only when the evidence shows that taxes were paid. Therefore, to answer no to that question would be to say that the jurisdiction is not operating consistent with IFTA governing documents. The reference to subsection .0100 should be changed to .100 since .0100 = .010, which already exists.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Oppose	Indiana does not support the ballot as currently written. We suggest that item 1 be added and that items 2 through 5 be considered as potential changes. 1. Require each member jurisdiction to report the number of audits where the inadequate record assessment is utilized. The number is a quantification of compliance. It is something we should care about when we consider the financial resources member jurisdictions utilize in the conduct of audits. We have been asked to provide this information in our Program Compliance Peer Review. I do not think we would be asked for this information if it was not important. 2. P1110.100 Annual Reporting. .100 Reporting Requirement All jurisdictions which are members under this Agreement shall submit an annual report consisting of the required information listed in .300-.600 below by March 1 for the preceding calendar year to the repository to be accesible for distribution to each member jurisdiction. With a section title of “Reporting Requirement” it may be that the use of “required information” is extraneous and could lead some to believe parts are not required. Suggest: “All member jurisdictions shall submit an annual report consisting of the information listed in P1110.111.300, P1110.111.400, P1110.111.500, and P1110.111.600 by March 1 for the preceding calendar year to the repository to be accessible to each member jurisdiction.” “accessible” appears to be spelled incorrectly in the ballot. 3. P1110.111 Annual Reporting .300 General Information Suggest: With the recent CBI the potential for entities to have more than one IFTA license may make it prudent to move the count to accounts instead of licensees. .005 Number of total IFTA accounts, which shall consist of all licensees accounts that were issued an IFTA license and decals for a licensing year excluding the accounts of licensees for which credentials are issued in error and those credentials are returned to the base jurisdiction; .010 Number of new IFTA licensee accounts which shall consist of all new accounts licensed for the license year being reported while not including licensee accounts when the licensee was previously licensed in another member jurisdiction; R251 Registration means the qualification of motor vehicles normally associated with a prepayment of licensing fees for the privilege of using the highway and the issuance of license plate and a registration card or temporary registration containing owner and vehicle data. Indiana questions if the use of registration is correct in this context and if a defined term of license year should be created in the Agreement. 4. Items P1110.300.035, .040, .045, .050, .065, .070 Indiana considers the above items to be better suited for a survey than an annual report as they do not impact a member jurisdiction’s required duties under the Agreement. Also, over time, the answers will become repetitive. 5. P1110.300.090, 095 The Agreement in R1010.200 Retail Fuel Purchases and R1020 Bulk Fuel Purchases address tax paid credits and refer to P550 Fuel Records. These three items appear to be in conflict with each other and with the proposed P1110.300.090 as noted by Florida. As proposed: P1110.300 .090 Do fuel purchase receipts have to indicate if taxes have been paid in order to be acceptable as a valid fuel receipt? .095 If no to .090, please explain. Per the Agreement: R1010.200 The receipt must show evidence of tax paid directly to the applicable jurisdiction or at the pump. Specific requirements for these receipts are outlined in the IFTA Procedures Manual Section P550. No member jurisdiction shall require evidence of such purchases beyond what is specified in the Procedures Manual. R1020.300 The licensee's records must identify the quantity of fuel taken from the licensee's own bulk storage and placed in its qualified motor vehicles. Recordkeeping requirements for tax paid bulk fuel purchases are provided in IFTA Procedures Manual Section P550. Per the Procedures Manual P550 Fuel Records .300 For tax-paid credit, a valid retail receipt, invoice, or transaction listing must contain: .005 the date of the fuel purchase .010 the name and address of the seller of the fuel (a vendor code, properly identified, is acceptable for this purpose) .015 the quantity of fuel purchased .020 the type of fuel purchased .025 the price of the fuel per gallon or per liter, or the total price of the fuel purchased .030 the identification of the qualified motor vehicle into which the fuel was placed .035 the name of the purchaser of the fuel (where the qualified motor vehicle being fueled is subject to a lease, the name of either the lessor or lessee is acceptable for this purpose, provided a legal connection can be made between the purchaser named and the licensee) .500 The base jurisdiction shall not allow a licensee tax-paid credit for fuel withdrawn by the licensee from its bulk fuel storage facilities unless the licensee produces records that show: .005 the purchase price of the fuel delivered into the bulk storage includes tax paid to the member jurisdiction where the bulk storage is located, or .010 the licensee has paid fuel tax to the member jurisdiction where the bulk storage is located.
IOWA	Undecided
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
LOUISIANA	Support	Agree with North Carolina's comments. Also, .300 additions ask a question using "does your jurisdiction" language, which does not conform to the presentation of the items previously listed. Shoudl they be restated so that they are not questions? (Ex: whether an online tax return filing program is offered and if so, whether it is optional or mandatory)
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MASSACHUSETTS	Undecided	Hi, P1110.100, on the ballot I am reading, says "required information" and P1110.300 indicates changing "required" to "General" in Red.?? If the intent of the ballot is to clarify language, then why am I so confused??.. I have always complied with the non-required info regarding exemptions and I update every February. We would also change the "As Needed" on the Jurisdictional Page on the IFTA Website to March 1 for the required information.
MICHIGAN	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support	streamlined reports allow for an added level of comprehension
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	NC supports this ballot but offers the following commentary: â€‹P1110.300.035 to P1110.300.0100- The focus switches from hard data points to inquiry based data. Will this require rewording of P1110.100? P1110.100 requires that the annual report "consisting of the required infomration listed in .300-.600 below"... â€‹ Information under .5400 and .600 requires action- a jurisdiction must "confirm' or "update" - the purpose of this section is to command and not to report â€‹ It could be clarified that a statement is to be provided in the report affirming that the action was taken as required by .5400
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Support
WYOMING	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Support: 34
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Support	This is the best way to maintain timely and accurate demographic information in the CH.
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support	Nevada believes this is beneficial for all.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	What does "full" demograpic data mean?
ONTARIO	Support	Had there not been confusion over the short track voting process, this ballot would most likely have passed in 2017. ON continues to support the proposal.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support	PEI Can accommodate this request and can support the ballot.
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
UTAH	Support	Utah already sends daily full demographic data to the clearinghouse.
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	WV already performs a full upload
WISCONSIN	Support	Wisconsin does this already and fully supports this ballot.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 36
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on STPBP #2 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut supported this ballot last year and continues to support it.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Iowa has no objections to this proposed ballot.
KANSAS	Support	Kansas will continue to support this ballot.
LOUISIANA	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MASSACHUSETTS	Support	Massachusetts has continued support for this ballot.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	We strongly encourage our US jurisdictions to vote in favour of this ballot to allow for this procedural change made by the Bank of Canada. Failure to amend this section will mean all Canadian jurisdictions will be non-compliant with IFTA. It is a slippery slope for all member jurisdictions, if the PCRC chooses not to site the Canadian jurisdictions for non-compliance on this issue as it will be easy for any other jurisdiction to claim it should not be cited (for whatever non-compliance issue arises) and receive the same treatment as the Canadian provinces have been with respect to the Bank of Canada exchange rates. In the alternative, if the PCRC sites the Canadian jurisdictions and there is no change made to the Procedures Manual, this would seem to lead to the evenutual expulsion of the Canadian jurisdictions for non-compliance. So again, I encourage all of the member jurisdictions to agree to this ballot and to vote in favour of it. Every member has a vested interest in this ballot.
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	To be clear, this was not a voluntary change on the part of the provinces but an amended procedure imposed by the Bank of Canada. There is no other option available and without successful passage of the ballot, all Canadian jjurisdictions cannot possibly be in compliance with the terms of IFTA. Considering the overwhelming support this proposal received at the 2017 ABM and the very fact it then failed to garner enough votes to pass is a puzzle. Decisions ought not to be determined by confusion or apathy - perhaps it's time to reconsider the balloting process and structure.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support	Changes at the central bank make this a requirement. No jurisdiction can comply with the current wording. Please take the time to vote in favor of this ballot.
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	This ballot is required so all jurisdiction who have transactions with Canadian jurisdictions can stay in compliance with the agreement.
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
UTAH	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Support	Absolute support.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 11
Oppose: 7
Undecided: 17

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	In rare cases, an Alabama-based taxpayer does not bring their equipment back to Alabama; therefore, they have no distance to report in Alabama. However, they are still an Alabama-based taxpayer, and have not established "residency" in any other state. A jurisdiction should not be prevented from issuing licenses to its taxpayers.
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta generally supports the idea but have concerns about redefining "Base Jurisdiction" as well as the definitions provided for "Established Place of Business" and "Residence". The latter two terms are often used in corporate income tax administration and there have been court cases on how those terms are interpreted. Similiar to the concerns raised by the ASSC, Alberta would be more comfortable if the Articles of Agreement are amended in other sections to support the idea.
Attorneys Section Steering Committee	Oppose	As written, the ballot seeks to amend the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” in a manner that makes it unclear if a licensee might be allowed to have two (2) different Base Jurisdictions at the same time. The IFTA Attorney’s Section would oppose amending the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” to achieve the intended purpose of this ballot. If the intent of the ballot is to allow an IFTA license to be issued in a jurisdiction other than where the qualified motor vehicle is registered, the Attorneys’ Section agree, the more appropriate place to make such a change within the IFTA governing documents is R500 of the Articles. Language addressing this type of situation already exists within the provisions of R530.200 for Independent Contractors which states, “[i]f the lessee (carrier) through a written agreement or contract assumes responsibility for reporting and paying fuel use taxes, the base jurisdiction for purposes of this Agreement shall be the base jurisdiction of the lessee, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the qualified motor vehicle is registered for vehicle registration purposes by the lessor.” Similar language could be used to extend the provision to long-term Rental/Leasing, if that is consistent with the sponsor’s intent.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided	BC supports the concept but is not sure about the ballot, or if a change is necessary. BC does not believe IFTA has ever looked for, or cited a jurisdiction for issuing or renewing a carrier’s IFTA credentials with no travel in and/or vehicles registered in the base-jurisdiction. BC expects travel in BC and vehicles registered in BC but if we ever identified this situation, the business provided a good explanation and was still maintaining some sort of business location within BC I’m fairly sure we’d register them “provisionally” and revisit in 6 months or during the next IFTA renewal cycle. Is there something specific preventing other jurisdictions from doing the same within their existing legislation?
CALIFORNIA	Undecided
CONNECTICUT	Undecided
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided	I’m still undecided. As a side comment, I am wondering if "residence" really means a “status” of an applicant or licensee as proposed in the following langauge: *R252 Residence means the status of an applicant or licensee as a resident of a member jurisdiction. (underlined) Residence is typically defined as a physical structure or location where one resides, not a status of a person (applicant, licensee, resident).
KANSAS	Undecided
MAINE	Support	We beleive we can support this ballot, but we have some concerns regarding unintended consequences. Reserving final support until we have seen other comments.
MANITOBA	Undecided	We agree with PEI's comments.
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland opposes the current ballot language as there is no provision to allow D.C. carriers, who desire to obtain IFTA credentials, an option to license in a member jurisdiction. The D.C. carriers do not necessarily have Maryland registered vehicles, a physical presence, nor residency within Maryland, and would be forced to obtain trip permits for interjurisdictional travel. A possible solution might be to amend the language to change "and" to "or" beteen 200 and 300.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota supports ballot proposal 03-2018. We recognize that there are occasions where a licensee who is a resident and physically located in the state yet may be working outside the state and not accruing mileage in the home state and support the ballot to allow these circumstances.
MISSISSIPPI	Undecided
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Undecided
NEVADA	Support	The intent of this ballot is to allow a licensee to open an IFTA only account as long as they can show proof of residency or established place of business in a jurisdiction when they do not also have a vehicle registered in that jurisdiction. Nevada has seen an increase in recent years where the carrier responsible for safety is different than the registrant, but truly a resident or maintains an established place of business in Nevada. However, when the vehicle is registered in another jurisdiction by the registrant and the carrier responsible for safety does not have any vehicles, there is no provision for them to open an IFTA only account. This ballot does not change the recordkeeping or accrued distance in the base jurisdiction requirements. Please feel free to contact Dawn Lietz, NV; Jay Starling, AB; or Joy Prenger, MO if you have any questions.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	The way this ballot is constructed, a registrant can base in any jurisdiction where the qualified motor vehicles are based, or the licensee has an EPOB or provides proof of residence and operational control is maintained and some travel is accrued. In the History/Digest section of the ballot it suggests an intent to allow a licensee to base in a jurisdiction in which, due to business circumstances, cannot accrue distance in the base jurisdiction. That intent seems to conflict with the modified R212.400 language that continues to require travel in the base jurisdiction.
ONTARIO	Oppose	Given the cautionary advice noted in the ASSC commentary, ON does not support the proposal in its current structure.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	Although we support the desire to allow carriers to operate longer periods outside their base, it is cause for concern that their records no longer need to be maintained, nor be made accessible in their base jurisdiction. There is also concern with the lack of a time limit as is stipulated in IRP. This seems to open the door henceforth and forever more. PEI will follow the comments on this ballot before deciding our final position.
QUEBEC	Oppose	The language of this ballot is confusing and could create uncertainty for carriers and jurisdictions. Indeed, the conditions set out for the definition of "Home Jurisdiction" are sometimes alternative (or) and sometimes cumulative (and) which complicates the understanding. In addition, the use of the concept of "Residence" involves certain issues, including the fact that this definition may vary depending on the jurisdiction. We suggest reworking this ballot to better target its scope and thus ensure the desired results.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SOUTH CAROLINA	Undecided
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
UTAH	Oppose	Utah is in agreement with ON regarding the cautionary advice noted in the ASSC commentary, and therefore, does not support the current proposal without further discussion on this issue.
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided
WISCONSIN	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 13
Oppose: 9
Undecided: 10

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided	Alabama supports a firm cut off date. In today's electronic world, the amount of time needed to post tax rate changes seems excessive.
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta generally supports the ballot and a firm cut-off date. However, we also recognize that there may be extraordinary circumstances. We are not sure providing another 5 days will help.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	This ballot is intended for the convenience of jurisdictional staff, IFTA carriers and service providers/tax preparers. It is not intended to limit the ability of any jurisdiction to set or change their tax rates. It is intended only to limit communication of a late tax rate change to others (i.e., those outside the jurisdiction making the late change) after a specific cut-off date. Jurisdictions have different internal timelines and processes and some can make accomidate rate changes later than others but each time a late rate change is communicated outside the jurisdiction making the change there is an increased risk of inconsistency and additional work created for other jurisdictions and their IFTA carriers. As an example: Jurisdiction A - communicates a late tax rate change outside their jurisdiction. Jurisdiction B & C – do not have sufficient time to accommodate the change in their IFTA systems. However, a number of IFTA carriers within Jurisdiction B & C and service providers/tax preparers for IFTA carriers in Jurisdiction B & C are able to accommodate the late change. This results in those IFTA carrier’s submitting returns to Jurisdiction A & B going into error (the amount due on a licensee’s tax return differs from what the jurisdiction’s financial system calculates) and needing to be manually processed, and potentially amounts written-off, and/or assessments/refunds issued.
CALIFORNIA	Oppose	We already have a firm cutoff date and we still have jurs missing it. They can always ask jurs to change the rate after the cut off but jurs have no obligation to change the rate after the existing firm cutoff date.
CONNECTICUT	Undecided
IDAHO	Support
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Undecided
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Undecided	Maryland will likely support Ballot #4- 2018. We would like to comment, however, that this initiative seems to be at the convenience of Jurisdiction staff rather than the overall IFTA Objective, where accuracy of rates would take priority over the convenience, Maryland can accomodate rate changes up to two (2) days prior to the 15th day, when blank paper returns are cut. Although Maryland has never had a need to submit a late rate, we readily accomodated other Jrusidiction late rate changes whenever possible in an effort to make the rates on in our system as accurate as possible. We recognize that other Juris may not have this type of flexibility.
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Oppose	I don't see how adding 5 days is going to prevent the occasional occurrence of a jurisdiction that fails to notify IFTA, Inc. timely of a rate change. Understanding that not all jurisdictions can accommodate late changes, it is still our belief that the core mission of IFTA is to properly collect fuel tax and jurisdictions should do everything in their power to collect at the proper rate and IFTA, Inc. should do everything in their power to assist in that endeavor.
NEVADA	Support	Nevada supports a firm cutoff date.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	This ballot looks like an attempt to prevent jurisdictions from implementing a tax rate change that wasn’t communicated within the timeframe required by P1120. If the jurisdiction is able to implement the change, why not allow them to? What harm has occurred that should prevent the repository from communicating late rates to the jurisdictions?
ONTARIO	Oppose	ON is a jurisdiction that has very little leeway in allowing for late tax rate changes due to a continued reliance on paper based returns – consequently we are not usually able to accommodate most requested revisions. Despite that, considering that a licensee may still be liable for tax owing to the requesting jurisdiction, we would not be comfortable in foregoing the corresponding notification as we purposely publicize such information to ensure the ON licensee is made aware of the potential for an ensuing tax assessment. From the ON perspective, reducing the window from 60 days to 55 days would not help improve the ability to react to a late rate change and the efforts to amend the provision seem to be out of proportion to the possible benefit.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	Although we can accommodate short turnarounds, we appreciate not all jurisdictions have that luxury, which we believe was covered by the extraordinary measures clause. If the ballot passes, future cleanup to the wording should consider "will not be communicated to member jurisdictions UNTIL THE FOLLOWING QUARTER" or words to that effect. As well, the first sentence of .300 can be removed entirely. PEI will follow the comments on this ballot before deciding our final position.
QUEBEC	Oppose	Comments from the legal department: This proposed amendment could be interpreted as limiting the sovereign power of each jurisdiction to set its tax rates. We believe that the current version of P1120.100 and P1120.300 should be retained to allow jurisidictions that can accommodate another jurisdiction for a rate change after the deadline set by IFTA, Inc. to do.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Undecided
UTAH	Oppose	We already have a firm cutoff date.
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided
WISCONSIN	Undecided
WYOMING	Support

Support: 19
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 11

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We understand that electronic services is the way of the future. However, we would like to hear how some of the concerns as noted through the pilot project are to be dealt with first. Alberta also agrees with the concerns as noted by Ontario.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut is in support of this ballot. Since electronic credentialing is where IFTA is moving as a membership, this ballot is a critical step toward that goal.
ILLINOIS	Undecided
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports this ballot as it moves away from requiring paper when we exist in an electronic world. However, the presentation of a paper or electronic image of a license does not verify the status of a credential as additional acts must be taken by roadside enforcement. Imagine roadside enforcement already knowing the status of an IFTA license prior to pulling a truck over. It is possible and it is time.
KANSAS	Undecided	Without the full endorsement from LE, Kansas cannot support the ballot as this time. We have similar concerns as Alabama, Ontario and Washington. This section of the ballot may need more clarification. As noted in the History/Digest of the ballot: The response of licensees and LE has been highly positive. In my opinion, this is misleading, LE from Kansas has vocalized concerns that were not acknowledged. It is my understanding that very few carriers participated and only 1 carrier of relevant fleet size participated in the study and no inspection reports were “turned in”. We too would like the Law Enforcement Committee to voice their concerns.
MAINE	Support	The IFTA license, whether paper or on a device, is merely a convenience to provide basic information. In order to truly verify a licensee's status, a check must be made against a database such as SAFER (via a CVIEW) or the CH.
MICHIGAN	Undecided	Michigan is not opposed to electronic credentials and recognizes it will inevitably be accepted. Even as a participant of the pilot program, we recognize the potential. Our concern is that the language of the ballot states jurisdictions must accept electronic images of the IFTA license if that is the format provided by the licensee. This language has no regard to the jurisdictional statutes or the jurisdictions law enforcement policy. Since the effective date is allowing time for statutory and regulation changes, what are the consequences of jurisdictions who do not implement a change of accepting an electronic image of an IFTA license?
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is very supportive of the ballot proposal and the January 2020 effective date but would prefer to have a definition included that the electronic image shall be in unalterable format.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose
NEVADA	Support	Nevada fully supports the use of electronic credentials. Whether in paper format or electronic, the only real way to know if a vehicle is on the road legally is to confirm the company information through another means such as NLETS, ASPEN, SAFER, CVIEW, etc. Reliance on a decal and paper cab card, or an electronic image of a cab card, does not ensure the company operating the vehicle is properly registered and licensed at the time of the stop.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	If this ballot passes, we may have to make statutory changes.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	We agree with Ontario's comments.
ONTARIO	Undecided	While there may be value in allowing either format in licensing, it seems fundamentally skewed for that decision to be controlled by an individual licensee. By all means introduce the flexibility at the discretion of each jurisdiction but continue with the requirement to also carry a paper copy of the license. Despite the best of intentions there may be situations where electronic information is simply not accessible (e.g. service provider limitations, dropped signal, defective device, etc.) Jurisdictions must be permitted to continue with roadside inspection activities and enforcement by demanding proof of an IFTA license in these circumstances. It would be beneficial to add language and establish a process for an evidence trail that may be necessary in the event that fraudulent electronic documents are discovered. Additionally the ballot does not speak to the control, handling or potential jurisdictional liability of any device presented by the licensee.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	We agree with Ontario's comments.
QUEBEC	Undecided	As per our Law Enforcement agents, it is always the responsability of the carrier to prove he has a valid license. If electronic information is not accessible then the driver needs to carry a paper copy of the licence.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Undecided
Stakeholders	Support	6-2-2017 ATA Robert Pitcher We support the concept very strongly, but the effective date should be moved up at least a year, to no later than January 2019!
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Washington would like to have the Law Enforcement Committee to review and explain their enforcement concerns (if any). We are concerned with a "picture" or other electronic documents. We are interested in hearing from other jurisdictions regarding any concerns that this is at the taxpayer's discretion and not more defined by the ballot language.
WISCONSIN	Support

Support: 30
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #1 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
GEORGIA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	I know most of our jurisdictions already transmit their clearinghouse data daily. The ballot clarifies this and provide up to date information and provide up to date information for roadside.
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	WV already uploads each day.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 30
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #2 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
GEORGIA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	WV has no issue with this.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 11
Oppose: 7
Undecided: 17

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	In rare cases, an Alabama-based taxpayer does not bring their equipment back to Alabama; therefore, they have no distance to report in Alabama. However, they are still an Alabama-based taxpayer, and have not established "residency" in any other state. A jurisdiction should not be prevented from issuing licenses to its taxpayers.
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta generally supports the idea but have concerns about redefining "Base Jurisdiction" as well as the definitions provided for "Established Place of Business" and "Residence". The latter two terms are often used in corporate income tax administration and there have been court cases on how those terms are interpreted. Similiar to the concerns raised by the ASSC, Alberta would be more comfortable if the Articles of Agreement are amended in other sections to support the idea.
Attorneys Section Steering Committee	Oppose	As written, the ballot seeks to amend the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” in a manner that makes it unclear if a licensee might be allowed to have two (2) different Base Jurisdictions at the same time. The IFTA Attorney’s Section would oppose amending the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” to achieve the intended purpose of this ballot. If the intent of the ballot is to allow an IFTA license to be issued in a jurisdiction other than where the qualified motor vehicle is registered, the Attorneys’ Section agree, the more appropriate place to make such a change within the IFTA governing documents is R500 of the Articles. Language addressing this type of situation already exists within the provisions of R530.200 for Independent Contractors which states, “[i]f the lessee (carrier) through a written agreement or contract assumes responsibility for reporting and paying fuel use taxes, the base jurisdiction for purposes of this Agreement shall be the base jurisdiction of the lessee, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the qualified motor vehicle is registered for vehicle registration purposes by the lessor.” Similar language could be used to extend the provision to long-term Rental/Leasing, if that is consistent with the sponsor’s intent.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided	BC supports the concept but is not sure about the ballot, or if a change is necessary. BC does not believe IFTA has ever looked for, or cited a jurisdiction for issuing or renewing a carrier’s IFTA credentials with no travel in and/or vehicles registered in the base-jurisdiction. BC expects travel in BC and vehicles registered in BC but if we ever identified this situation, the business provided a good explanation and was still maintaining some sort of business location within BC I’m fairly sure we’d register them “provisionally” and revisit in 6 months or during the next IFTA renewal cycle. Is there something specific preventing other jurisdictions from doing the same within their existing legislation?
CALIFORNIA	Undecided
CONNECTICUT	Undecided
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided	I’m still undecided. As a side comment, I am wondering if "residence" really means a “status” of an applicant or licensee as proposed in the following langauge: *R252 Residence means the status of an applicant or licensee as a resident of a member jurisdiction. (underlined) Residence is typically defined as a physical structure or location where one resides, not a status of a person (applicant, licensee, resident).
KANSAS	Undecided
MAINE	Support	We beleive we can support this ballot, but we have some concerns regarding unintended consequences. Reserving final support until we have seen other comments.
MANITOBA	Undecided	We agree with PEI's comments.
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland opposes the current ballot language as there is no provision to allow D.C. carriers, who desire to obtain IFTA credentials, an option to license in a member jurisdiction. The D.C. carriers do not necessarily have Maryland registered vehicles, a physical presence, nor residency within Maryland, and would be forced to obtain trip permits for interjurisdictional travel. A possible solution might be to amend the language to change "and" to "or" beteen 200 and 300.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota supports ballot proposal 03-2018. We recognize that there are occasions where a licensee who is a resident and physically located in the state yet may be working outside the state and not accruing mileage in the home state and support the ballot to allow these circumstances.
MISSISSIPPI	Undecided
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Undecided
NEVADA	Support	The intent of this ballot is to allow a licensee to open an IFTA only account as long as they can show proof of residency or established place of business in a jurisdiction when they do not also have a vehicle registered in that jurisdiction. Nevada has seen an increase in recent years where the carrier responsible for safety is different than the registrant, but truly a resident or maintains an established place of business in Nevada. However, when the vehicle is registered in another jurisdiction by the registrant and the carrier responsible for safety does not have any vehicles, there is no provision for them to open an IFTA only account. This ballot does not change the recordkeeping or accrued distance in the base jurisdiction requirements. Please feel free to contact Dawn Lietz, NV; Jay Starling, AB; or Joy Prenger, MO if you have any questions.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	The way this ballot is constructed, a registrant can base in any jurisdiction where the qualified motor vehicles are based, or the licensee has an EPOB or provides proof of residence and operational control is maintained and some travel is accrued. In the History/Digest section of the ballot it suggests an intent to allow a licensee to base in a jurisdiction in which, due to business circumstances, cannot accrue distance in the base jurisdiction. That intent seems to conflict with the modified R212.400 language that continues to require travel in the base jurisdiction.
ONTARIO	Oppose	Given the cautionary advice noted in the ASSC commentary, ON does not support the proposal in its current structure.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	Although we support the desire to allow carriers to operate longer periods outside their base, it is cause for concern that their records no longer need to be maintained, nor be made accessible in their base jurisdiction. There is also concern with the lack of a time limit as is stipulated in IRP. This seems to open the door henceforth and forever more. PEI will follow the comments on this ballot before deciding our final position.
QUEBEC	Oppose	The language of this ballot is confusing and could create uncertainty for carriers and jurisdictions. Indeed, the conditions set out for the definition of "Home Jurisdiction" are sometimes alternative (or) and sometimes cumulative (and) which complicates the understanding. In addition, the use of the concept of "Residence" involves certain issues, including the fact that this definition may vary depending on the jurisdiction. We suggest reworking this ballot to better target its scope and thus ensure the desired results.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SOUTH CAROLINA	Undecided
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
UTAH	Oppose	Utah is in agreement with ON regarding the cautionary advice noted in the ASSC commentary, and therefore, does not support the current proposal without further discussion on this issue.
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided
WISCONSIN	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 25
Oppose: 6
Undecided: 2

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We are undecided on the ballot. We understand the benefits for a firm cut-off date. However, we have concerns with the current proposal that rate changes received less than 60 days not be communicated to member jurisdictions. Our thoughts are that if we agree on a cut-off date, jurisdictions are still allowed to communicate the change. It is just that other jurisdictions do not need to implement the rate change. We also prefer the current language under P1120.300 that the other jurisdictions will be relieved from taking extraordinary measures to implement the change.
Attorneys Section Steering Committee	Oppose	IFTA Ballot Proposal #04-2018 Comment of the IFTA Attorneys’ Section IFTA Ballot Proposal #04-2018 as written seeks to establish a firm cutoff date or lockdown date for tax rate changes, whereby member jurisdictions must notify the IFTA repository of any tax rate changes not less than 55 days prior to the return due date and would further disallow any member jurisdiction from implementing any other jurisdiction’s tax rate changes if the above deadline is not met. Procedures Manual §1120.100 presently states that member jurisdictions are required to notify the IFTA repository of all tax rate changes at the earliest possible time. Failure to report tax rate changes is addressed at P1120.300, which states that if a member jurisdiction fails to report a tax rate change to the repository at least 60 days prior to the quarterly return due date, other member jurisdictions are not required to take “extraordinary measures” to implement the tax rate change. The IFTA Attorneys’ Section makes the following observations regarding IFTA Ballot Proposal #04-2018: 1. Articles of Agreement R130.100 sets out the three core provisions to effect the purpose of the IFTA Agreement. Included as one of those core provisions is the “[r]etention of each jurisdiction’s sovereign authority to determine tax rates, exemptions and exercise other substantive tax authority.” (see R130.100.010). The implementation of a firm cutoff date coupled with disallowing jurisdictions from implementing another jurisdictions untimely tax rate change (per the proposed ballot language), might be construed as contrary to or a limitation upon a jurisdictions authority to determine and set tax rates. Because the core provisions of the Agreement are authorized by Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, this type of change may result in challenges that IFTA is acting outside the Congressional approval. 2. As written, this ballot would deny jurisdictions the opportunity to seek assistance from other jurisdictions if, for example, a jurisdiction has a tax rate change enacted outside the specified reporting time or if a jurisdiction has an error in their tax rate on the IFTA tax matrix. Under the current provisions, the jurisdiction with the late or erroneous tax rate can notify other jurisdictions of the rate discrepancy (especially neighboring jurisdictions where it is known there will be mileage and fuel reported) and request the other jurisdictions update their system with the correct information, if doing so does not require extraordinary measures. These other jurisdictions are not required to make the correction, but allows the jurisdictions the opportunity to work cooperatively if possible, thereby mitigating any negative effects.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
GEORGIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	While Minnesota is in agreement in principle of the change, we believe that the language in .300, "...should not..." leaves some doubt as to if this is a directive or is it advice. The author's stated intent is to establish a firm cut off date, therefore would the authors consent to a change of wording to "must" or "shall not" thus making the statement a directive.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	After additional discussion within the community, Oklahoma sees the value in enforcing a firm cut-off date for the communication of tax rate changes.
QUEBEC	Oppose
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support	South Carolina supports FTPBP #4
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
Stakeholders	Support	11/6/2018 ATA - Robert Pitcher Support. The American Trucking Associations supports Ballot Proposal #4 for the reasons outlined in the comments of the sponsor. Late-enacted tax rate changes will continue to be an occasional problem for IFTA, but the establishment of a more solid, enforceable cut-off date will avoid unnecessary turmoil for licensees and jurisdictional personnel alike. 10/25/2018 IAC Chair - Dennis Vanderslice Support. The IFTA IAC is in favor of enforcing the cut-off date determined by the Articles of Agreement. The IAC feels that the implementation of rate changes must be absolute and consistent amongst ALL jurisdictions. A rate change in a single jurisdiction affects ALL members of IFTA including both government and industry. When rates are updated after the official cut-off date and the changes are not communicated effectively, or some jurisdictions update at will, it causes confusion and an unnecessary additional workload for both government and industry in the form of late and/or amended returns. This in turn creates additional financial repercussions with penalty and interest charged against late or amended returns.
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Oppose	We already have a cutoff date.
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose	We already have a cut off date.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 19
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 11

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2018

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We understand that electronic services is the way of the future. However, we would like to hear how some of the concerns as noted through the pilot project are to be dealt with first. Alberta also agrees with the concerns as noted by Ontario.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut is in support of this ballot. Since electronic credentialing is where IFTA is moving as a membership, this ballot is a critical step toward that goal.
ILLINOIS	Undecided
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports this ballot as it moves away from requiring paper when we exist in an electronic world. However, the presentation of a paper or electronic image of a license does not verify the status of a credential as additional acts must be taken by roadside enforcement. Imagine roadside enforcement already knowing the status of an IFTA license prior to pulling a truck over. It is possible and it is time.
KANSAS	Undecided	Without the full endorsement from LE, Kansas cannot support the ballot as this time. We have similar concerns as Alabama, Ontario and Washington. This section of the ballot may need more clarification. As noted in the History/Digest of the ballot: The response of licensees and LE has been highly positive. In my opinion, this is misleading, LE from Kansas has vocalized concerns that were not acknowledged. It is my understanding that very few carriers participated and only 1 carrier of relevant fleet size participated in the study and no inspection reports were “turned in”. We too would like the Law Enforcement Committee to voice their concerns.
MAINE	Support	The IFTA license, whether paper or on a device, is merely a convenience to provide basic information. In order to truly verify a licensee's status, a check must be made against a database such as SAFER (via a CVIEW) or the CH.
MICHIGAN	Undecided	Michigan is not opposed to electronic credentials and recognizes it will inevitably be accepted. Even as a participant of the pilot program, we recognize the potential. Our concern is that the language of the ballot states jurisdictions must accept electronic images of the IFTA license if that is the format provided by the licensee. This language has no regard to the jurisdictional statutes or the jurisdictions law enforcement policy. Since the effective date is allowing time for statutory and regulation changes, what are the consequences of jurisdictions who do not implement a change of accepting an electronic image of an IFTA license?
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is very supportive of the ballot proposal and the January 2020 effective date but would prefer to have a definition included that the electronic image shall be in unalterable format.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose
NEVADA	Support	Nevada fully supports the use of electronic credentials. Whether in paper format or electronic, the only real way to know if a vehicle is on the road legally is to confirm the company information through another means such as NLETS, ASPEN, SAFER, CVIEW, etc. Reliance on a decal and paper cab card, or an electronic image of a cab card, does not ensure the company operating the vehicle is properly registered and licensed at the time of the stop.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	If this ballot passes, we may have to make statutory changes.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	We agree with Ontario's comments.
ONTARIO	Undecided	While there may be value in allowing either format in licensing, it seems fundamentally skewed for that decision to be controlled by an individual licensee. By all means introduce the flexibility at the discretion of each jurisdiction but continue with the requirement to also carry a paper copy of the license. Despite the best of intentions there may be situations where electronic information is simply not accessible (e.g. service provider limitations, dropped signal, defective device, etc.) Jurisdictions must be permitted to continue with roadside inspection activities and enforcement by demanding proof of an IFTA license in these circumstances. It would be beneficial to add language and establish a process for an evidence trail that may be necessary in the event that fraudulent electronic documents are discovered. Additionally the ballot does not speak to the control, handling or potential jurisdictional liability of any device presented by the licensee.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	We agree with Ontario's comments.
QUEBEC	Undecided	As per our Law Enforcement agents, it is always the responsability of the carrier to prove he has a valid license. If electronic information is not accessible then the driver needs to carry a paper copy of the licence.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Undecided
Stakeholders	Support	6-2-2017 ATA Robert Pitcher We support the concept very strongly, but the effective date should be moved up at least a year, to no later than January 2019!
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Washington would like to have the Law Enforcement Committee to review and explain their enforcement concerns (if any). We are concerned with a "picture" or other electronic documents. We are interested in hearing from other jurisdictions regarding any concerns that this is at the taxpayer's discretion and not more defined by the ballot language.
WISCONSIN	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Support: 31
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Undecided	Currently, we utilize and encourage our carriers to obtain a Temporary Decal Permit (R650), which adequately addresses this issue. The temporary decal permit is vehicle specific and provides a document trail for audit. We are not necessarily opposed to the ballot at this time, but would like to evaluate it's necessity.
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is supportive of the ballot proposal and the effective date.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support	Support if ballot #2 passes requiring serialized decals.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	By not affixing the decal to the vehicle, there is concern carriers could move unaffixed decals between vehicles and not properly report. It may be more difficult to track vehicles and mileage that should be reported.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
Stakeholders	Support	6-2-2017 ATA Robert Pitcher This seems like common sense, but only given that IFTA requires decals at all. Decals no longer make any sense.
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Support

Support: 18
Oppose: 7
Undecided: 8

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta generally supports the ballot but has concerns. We have agents requesting decals to be distributed to their various client licensees as listed by the agents. While Alberta keeps track of serialized decals and can update the serialized decal information for those decals Alberta issued directly to licensees, we do not have information on which specific serialized decals are distributed by the agents to the specific licensees. Since Alberta cannot update the serialized decal information for decals distributed through these agents, there continues to be a need to call Alberta for verification of decal information for those cases. We are, therefore, wondering about the value of the proposed ballot.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	Already doing.
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut is in support of this ballot. While IFTA is expressly not vehicle specific, nothing prevents jurisdictions from maintaining information on what serial numbers have been issued to specific carriers. By providing this information as part of the Clearinghouse demographics, law enforcement can readily identify what decal numbers a carrier has in their possession. This will make things easier for law enforcement to identify the misuse of decals. Once IFTA goes to full electronic credentialing we will in fact be vehicle specific; until such time this is a good measure to undertake to assist law enforcement.
ILLINOIS	Oppose	Oppose as written. One very important component that must be required with this ballot language is the decal year must be identified with the serial number. It is possible that decal number IL123456 is valid for two different companies at the same time: carrier ABC could have decal IL123456 issued for 2017, while carrier DEF could have decal IL123456 issued to them for 2018: both decals (could be) valid from December through the end of the grace period. A roadside search of "serial number" could provide a false hit if that decal serial number is not tied to a specific year.
INDIANA	Oppose	Indiana does not support this ballot as it does not provide a complete solution. If passed this ballot would require programming changes, continual updates, and still would not verify that the credential is valid through this change alone. To expend resources to comply with this ballot when we are on the doorstep of a very different future verification process that would also require allocation of scarce resources is inefficient. As an alternative, Indiana supports the concept of electronic records as a safe, accurate, inclusive, economical, and effective validation of credentials.
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Undecided	While Maine currently seializes its decals, we see limited value in requiring jurisdictions to send their serial numbers to the CH. This option exists today fo rany jurisdiction wishing to avail themselves of the service. Making this a requirement at this late date would seem superfluous.
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is supportive of the ballot proposal and the effective date.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support	Nevada supports this ballot as we already serialize our decals. That said, what does this ballot really accomplish? It will require costly changes for system programming and a new field in the clearinghouse. Decals and copies of licenses in the cab are little more than a false sense of security for law enforcement and have been for years. A decal (serialized or not) on the cab of the truck does not ensure that vehicle is being reported for IFTA. The license is only a piece of paper that states the "company" the vehicle belongs to licensed for IFTA. It doesn't mean the returns were received, all the vehicles were reported on the return, or the information on the return is even accurate. Only real time information which may also be available through ASPEN, NLETS, SAFER, PRISM, CVIEW, etc., will tell you if the company is still active and in good standing with IFTA. Perhaps rather than trying to fit the electronic credentials into a box that is rapidly becoming obsolete, it is time to think outside the box and find long term solutions that will fit the changing transportation industry, i.e. in 2035 when driversless vehicles are the norm. It's time to consider piloting a few states to go totally electronic, no paper license and no decals, or perhaps build an app through IFTA that will provide realtime status of the company for roadside enforcement to view if it provides greater value to the officer coming directly from IFTA.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided	We support the idea of including the decal numbers, however we will need to investigate the capability of our IT system to provide this information.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	There is concern with the system changes needed and costs associated with those changes.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	We are unclear about operational and IT implications.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	We would need to confirm with our IT department that the information we already have in our system could easily be reported on.
QUEBEC	Oppose	Even if Quebec is not part of the clearinghouse, we think this proposal will require a significant system development and it will be costly.
RHODE ISLAND	Support	RI currenty already does this
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
Stakeholders	Oppose	6-2-2017 ATA Robert Pitcher Although more thorough and timely sharing of IFTA licensees’ demographic data by the states and provinces is necessary, the sharing of serialized decal numbers is not, and would be bound to cause problems for compliant carriers.
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Oppose	We feel it's not worth the effort to have our system changed, and decals serialized, if decals are going to be obsolete in the next few years. .
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Virginia already does this voluntarily, but to require it of all jurisdictions seems at odds with the long-term goal of moving to electronic credentials. We look forward to the discussion of this ballot.
WASHINGTON	Oppose	This proposal would require a significant system development. We have IFTA accounts without IRP and IRP accounts with foreign jurisdiction IFTA. An IFTA account without vehicle information would be difficult to track decals by vehicle.
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Oppose	Wisconsin does not support. We currently maintain serial numbers internally but do not feel the juice is worth the squeeze. Reprogramming our system to upload serialized decal numbers to the clearinghouse would require funding and energy that we feel would be better spent elsewhere (electronic records). If decals were going to be around for another decade or longer, I would fully support vehicle specific decals. That being said, I believe the decal's days are numbered. Wisconsin is supportive of allocating resources to electronic records concept and level 8 (moving) roadside inspections.

Support: 33
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is supportive of the ballot proposal and the effective date.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Support

Support: 31
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	Already doing.
CONNECTICUT	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Support	this is the best way tio ensure timely and accurate CH demographic data.
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota already provides a full, daily data transmittal to the Clearinghouse and is in favor of this ballot proposal as brings parity to the data provided by each jurisdiction but would prefer to have a reasonable effective date included in the ballot proposal.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	Quebec is not part of the clearinghouse. This proposal will require a significant system development.
RHODE ISLAND	Support	RI currenty already does this
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support	Utah already sends daily full demographic data to the Clearinghouse.
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Washington uploads demographic data daily for accounts that have an update or status change. Would this meet the standards for this ballot? If so, we would support. If not, we would have to evaluate the required changes to our system before deciding to support or oppose.
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	WV already does this.
WISCONSIN	Support	Wisconsin already does this.

Support: 19
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 11

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We understand that electronic services is the way of the future. However, we would like to hear how some of the concerns as noted through the pilot project are to be dealt with first. Alberta also agrees with the concerns as noted by Ontario.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut is in support of this ballot. Since electronic credentialing is where IFTA is moving as a membership, this ballot is a critical step toward that goal.
ILLINOIS	Undecided
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports this ballot as it moves away from requiring paper when we exist in an electronic world. However, the presentation of a paper or electronic image of a license does not verify the status of a credential as additional acts must be taken by roadside enforcement. Imagine roadside enforcement already knowing the status of an IFTA license prior to pulling a truck over. It is possible and it is time.
KANSAS	Undecided	Without the full endorsement from LE, Kansas cannot support the ballot as this time. We have similar concerns as Alabama, Ontario and Washington. This section of the ballot may need more clarification. As noted in the History/Digest of the ballot: The response of licensees and LE has been highly positive. In my opinion, this is misleading, LE from Kansas has vocalized concerns that were not acknowledged. It is my understanding that very few carriers participated and only 1 carrier of relevant fleet size participated in the study and no inspection reports were “turned in”. We too would like the Law Enforcement Committee to voice their concerns.
MAINE	Support	The IFTA license, whether paper or on a device, is merely a convenience to provide basic information. In order to truly verify a licensee's status, a check must be made against a database such as SAFER (via a CVIEW) or the CH.
MICHIGAN	Undecided	Michigan is not opposed to electronic credentials and recognizes it will inevitably be accepted. Even as a participant of the pilot program, we recognize the potential. Our concern is that the language of the ballot states jurisdictions must accept electronic images of the IFTA license if that is the format provided by the licensee. This language has no regard to the jurisdictional statutes or the jurisdictions law enforcement policy. Since the effective date is allowing time for statutory and regulation changes, what are the consequences of jurisdictions who do not implement a change of accepting an electronic image of an IFTA license?
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is very supportive of the ballot proposal and the January 2020 effective date but would prefer to have a definition included that the electronic image shall be in unalterable format.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose
NEVADA	Support	Nevada fully supports the use of electronic credentials. Whether in paper format or electronic, the only real way to know if a vehicle is on the road legally is to confirm the company information through another means such as NLETS, ASPEN, SAFER, CVIEW, etc. Reliance on a decal and paper cab card, or an electronic image of a cab card, does not ensure the company operating the vehicle is properly registered and licensed at the time of the stop.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	If this ballot passes, we may have to make statutory changes.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	We agree with Ontario's comments.
ONTARIO	Undecided	While there may be value in allowing either format in licensing, it seems fundamentally skewed for that decision to be controlled by an individual licensee. By all means introduce the flexibility at the discretion of each jurisdiction but continue with the requirement to also carry a paper copy of the license. Despite the best of intentions there may be situations where electronic information is simply not accessible (e.g. service provider limitations, dropped signal, defective device, etc.) Jurisdictions must be permitted to continue with roadside inspection activities and enforcement by demanding proof of an IFTA license in these circumstances. It would be beneficial to add language and establish a process for an evidence trail that may be necessary in the event that fraudulent electronic documents are discovered. Additionally the ballot does not speak to the control, handling or potential jurisdictional liability of any device presented by the licensee.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	We agree with Ontario's comments.
QUEBEC	Undecided	As per our Law Enforcement agents, it is always the responsability of the carrier to prove he has a valid license. If electronic information is not accessible then the driver needs to carry a paper copy of the licence.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Undecided
Stakeholders	Support	6-2-2017 ATA Robert Pitcher We support the concept very strongly, but the effective date should be moved up at least a year, to no later than January 2019!
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Washington would like to have the Law Enforcement Committee to review and explain their enforcement concerns (if any). We are concerned with a "picture" or other electronic documents. We are interested in hearing from other jurisdictions regarding any concerns that this is at the taxpayer's discretion and not more defined by the ballot language.
WISCONSIN	Support

Support: 16
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 2

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
KANSAS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland is not in favor of temporarily affixing a decal for any purpose. It is the responsibility of the licensee to maintain control of their credentials, and it's their option to either license and abide by the rules and regulations, or obtain a trip permit for their affected operations.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support	see prior comment
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	See previous comments.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
UTAH	Support

Support: 13
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 4

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Undecided
ILLINOIS	Undecided	I was leaning towards supporting this ballot, but now as I think about this more, I'm wondering if the decal's "status" would then become necessary if serialized decals are to become tracked. For example, if a company is revoked, his license and decals are no longer valid: he must reinstate his account and get a new license and decals. Under his original (now revoked) license, he ordered 80 decals. Under his reinstated license he only ordered 20 decals to save money. 60 trucks in his fleet still run the "revoked" decals, while 20 run with the newly assigned decals -- they all look the same after all. OR-- he orders 80 new decals with his reinstatement (like he did on his original), but doesn't see the need to remove the revoked decals off of 80 trucks only to replace them with the "new" decals having different serial numbers -- they look the same, and it's November after all. Either way, with this ballot the Clearinghouse will show ALL of the decals issued to the carrier for the year whether they are currently valid or not. Do we really even care that some of the decals are technically no longer good?? They were all issued to that company, after all. Leasing companies are another story -- some notify us when a driver has been terminated. They no longer want their decal associated with that driver's truck. Should that particular decal serial number now have a status of "invalid" so it can be accurately be reflected in the Clearinghouse? Again do we really care? If we do care, that's more programming costs that could make this ballot less palatable to those jurisdictions already citing programming costs as a concern.
KANSAS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support	see prior comment.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	See previous comments.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	Will require system change by our 3rd party service provider.
ONTARIO	Support
QUEBEC	Oppose	Quebec has to take in consideration the cost, operational and systematic, associated to this change.
RHODE ISLAND	Support	IFTA.inc put the money and time a couple of years ago to add this to the clearinghouse. It make sense for an enforement reasons for the date to be sumbitted. If this ballot does not pass, then I think it would make sense to maybe looking at removing this option from the clearinghouse to save money for IFTA,Inc if no one is going to use it.
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Undecided
UTAH	Oppose	We feel it's not worth the effort to have our system changed, and decals serialized, if decals are going to be obsolete in the next few years.

Support: 27
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #3 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
UTAH	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 27
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #4 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support	Kansas already practices this procedure.
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support	Quebec is not part of the Clearinghouse but we support the ballot.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
UTAH	Support	Utah already sends daily full demographic data to the Clearinghouse.
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	WV already does this

Support: 11
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 6

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2017

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	Still have concerns about the size, clarity of images, and the process to make this work. Also agree with Quebec's comments.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
KANSAS	Undecided	Still have concerns regarding size requirements of the license which could lead to issues with Officer safety. See prior comments as well.
MANITOBA	Undecided	Agree with Quebec`s comments.
MARYLAND	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	See previous comments..
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	Agree with Quebec
ONTARIO	Oppose	Ontario continues to oppose the ballot as it fails to address the concerns previously raised in terms of access, security, handling, etc.
QUEBEC	Undecided	A simple modification or suggestion: The electronic image must be downloaded/stored on the electronic device to present in circumstances where wireless networks are down or not working. We recommend having the license electronic and in paper. After all, it is the responsability of the carrier to prove it.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	Pending legislative changes to accept electronic images.
UTAH	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

FTPBP #2 2016
FTPBP #3 2016

Support: 18
Oppose: 15
Undecided: 3

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2016

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	On line 5 of the ballot language, the word "And" should not be capitalized. Also, the word "for" should be omitted.
ALBERTA	Oppose	Strongly oppose. The ballot is divisive and we do not agree there is a need for the ballot.
ARIZONA	Oppose	I see zero benefit; it is extremely divisive.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Oppose	BC recognizes that it is common for international agreements to designate a particular language in which everyone is expected to use to communicate and that English is the most commonly chosen language. However the ballot does not provide any compelling reason for such a change at this time and Quebec has been a member of IFTA since 1996.
CONNECTICUT	Support	This ballot is designed to ensure that all written communications between jurisdictions and IFTA, Inc., between jurisdictions and each other, and for presentation to compliance review teams are in English. This ballot does not prohibit a jurisdiction from communicating with its licensees in another language if jurisdictional law requires or permits it. While some provinces communicate primarily in French and while there has always been the prospect of adding the Mexican States as a member jurisdiction, it is entirely appropriate to establish English as the official language of written communications for this Agreement as at least 83% of the membership does so.
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Undecided
LOUISIANA	Oppose
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Oppose
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Oppose	In light of the many years that jurisdictions have been able to successfully communicate with one another concerning IFTA related issues, there does not appear to be a compelling need for this ballot.
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is supportive of the proposal yet open to further discussion.
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	Strongly oppose.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose	We are strongly opposed to this ballot. It was a never an issue when Quebec first joined IFTA and it has never been an issue in any of our dealings with Quebec. We are at a total loss as to what this ballot purports to correct.
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	As was just demonstrated by Oregon, it is pretty simple these days to translate the written word. The message below took about 10 seconds. Qu'est-ce qui est arrivé à provoquer l' APC de proposer ce scrutin ? Comme Virginie, l'absence d'une justification plus convaincante , nous aurons du mal à soutenir ce scrutin . L' ATA et l'IAC font de bons points. English: What has happened to cause the APC to propose this ballot? Like Virginia, absent a more compelling justification, we will have a hard time supporting this ballot. The ATA and the IAC make good points.
ONTARIO	Oppose	All of the Canadian jurisdictions are part of a country that has adopted both French and English as its official languages. While ON is not technically a bilingual province, government services may always be accessed in either official language. This is not merely a statutory obligation but strongly encouraged and supported throughout the province in the public or private sector alike. This ballot is taking direct aim at a single jurisdiction, ignoring the overarching IFTA principle of a cooperative administration and mutual assistance. Language is not a factor in numerical transactions so it’s hard to fathom the concern with transmittals, payments, etc. While it may be problematic on occasions of a scheduled Compliance Review, most of the Canadian provinces are able to offer bilingual staff to assist in the process (and have done so in the past). At this time there is no justification to impose such exclusionary measures and ON strongly opposes this proposal.
OREGON	Oppose	Mes amis et collègues de l'IFTA , je suis heureux d'inverser mon vote "oui" d'origine "non" pour la simple raison que je ne l'origine pas rendu compte que ce scrutin a été de discorde et pourrait provoquer des sentiments blessés . Il est beaucoup plus important pour moi que nous respectons les uns les autres et de favoriser un environnement positif , collégial .
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	Pennsylvania supports FTPBP #1.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose	PEI opposes this ballot on the basis that it is potentially divisive and that it does not appear to be necessary.
QUEBEC	Oppose	To our colleagues and friends of APC: The intent: What has been changed in our IFTA world to propose this ballot? We are forming a strong team together and all Jurisdictions are using the English as a language of communications. As you may all know, the official language for Quebec is French and we translate all documents sent to the Jurisdictions. Quebec has been complying to all aspects since we joined IFTA. Translating all documents that the review team will look at represents a big cost to us, so why adding more points to the compliance? Unless the Review Team Members complained about a specific item that we are not aware of. Thank you for clarifying this ballot.
RHODE ISLAND	Undecided
Stakeholders		6/2/2016 ATA - Robert Pitcher Strongly oppose. While the existence of two official languages among IFTA’s member jurisdictions can occasion administrative difficulties, they are minor, and a proposal like this, which ignores the problems involved in obtaining reliable translations of highly technical material, will not in fact resolve them. More important, however, the proposal is highly inflammatory, and could have consequences for IFTA far beyond what its sponsors may expect. We agree with Ontario’s comments. 6/6/2016 Sandy Johnson, IAC Chair Strongly oppose. This ballot is extremely inflammatory and could prove to be divisive. We increasingly live in a multi-lingual society and find ways to deal with the communications issues. Industry agrees with Ontario’s comments.
UTAH	Undecided	This ballot appears to desire to establish an effective standard of communication. However, from current comments it also seems to be divisive. It makes us wonder if there was specific circumstances and problems that brought this forward or is there an ongoing issue. If there was an issue have requests to resolve it been made and rejected? The history with the ballot raises more questions than answers due to the sensitive nature of the issue. With that, Utah would consider support because by statute English is the declared official language of Utah. However, is this solving or creating an issue?
VIRGINIA	Oppose	Absent compelling justification Virginia cannot support such a proposal.
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Oppose	I've never heard of an issue with language.... Why change something that is not a problem?

Support: 33
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2016

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	According to R655.200, the carrier must display either valid current or prior year IFTA license and decals from the base jurisdiction during the January and February grace period. We are unsure as to whether carriers will be permitted to display credentials the 2 months prior to the grace period (November and December), when they’re allowed to renew.
ALBERTA	Undecided	We are currently reviewing our system impacts regarding the proposal.
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	This ballot changes the allowable timeframe to display the new year’s decals from one month (e.g. December 1) to two months before the effective date of the decals. Renewal processes generally start in either October or November. Allowing the two month window enhances a base jurisdiction’s ability to process renewals and issue decals. We are not sure whether we would change our current policy, but this proposal does not force us to change anything as it is designed to be permissive. Since many jurisdictions wish to begin their renewal period earlier, this makes some sense. Because this really doesn’t affect us and it makes the issuance and display earlier than currently allowed permissive, Connecticut agrees with this ballot.
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
LOUISIANA	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Undecided
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri supports this ballot. The language will work with our automated IFTA license renewal process to ensure Missouri customer's can display thier credentials timely.
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	Although NC supports the ballot, if the ballot passes the proposed effective date "Upon Passage" will most likely not allow us to communicate the ballot passage during our renewal process which begins in August 2016 with the mailing of our license/decal renewal application and our IFTA Compliance Manual because these items would have already been printed and sent out to licensees without the effective changes of a passed ballot.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	If there is a significant confusion as to when renewal decals may be displayed, there may be merit in advancing the window but perhaps what is also needed is an accompanying communications strategy by each jurisdiction to help remove the uncertainty.
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose	Pennsylvania does not see an advantage or purpose for displaying credentials two months early.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
Stakeholders		6/6/2016 Sandy Johnson, IAC Chair Neither support nor oppose Industry doesn’t understand why this is even an issue. The jurisdictions control when the decals are issued. Why wouldn’t it make sense to allow a carrier to display the decals as soon as they receive them, so why does that language even exist in the plan. Better yet, simply get rid of the decals altogether.
UTAH	Support
VIRGINIA	Support	The second sentence of R630 should be changed to recognize the shift from one month to two months. The sponsor might consider: However, those carriers are responsible for filing a fourth quarter report for the year preceding the effective date of the new credentials, including all operations for that quarter.
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 12
Oppose: 16
Undecided: 9

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2016

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	Alabama fully supports this ballot proposal. As we read the proposal however, we were uncertain as to whether abstentions will be included in the quorum count. Please ensure that this point is clarified in the ballot.
ALBERTA	Oppose	We agree with Oregon's comments.
ARIZONA	Oppose
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC believes that jurisdictions’ forgetting to vote, or not caring to vote should not influence the IFTA ballot/decision making process.
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	This ballot changes the way abstentions are treated when ballots are being considered for ratification. Currently in most circumstances 75% of the IFTA membership (58 jurisdictions) must vote in the affirmative to approve a ballot. In most cases, an abstention counts as a “No” vote. There is some level of concern that some jurisdictions do not vote, and therefore their “non” vote is counted as a “no” vote. We do not believe that this has been a broad and far reaching problem since Connecticut became a member in 1996. In fact, we do not believe it (abstentions) has been an impediment to the passage of worthwhile and needed language. The examples presented in the ballot’s “History/Digest” are not indicative of the membership’s failure to ratify much needed language. We do agree with the concern that a jurisdiction who has had their voting rights suspended (e.g. New Jersey) is counted as a “no” vote. We believe that the denominator for determining the threshold for ballot passage should be reduced by those jurisdictions not eligible to vote (e.g. 58 to 57 jurisdictions). We have further concerns that this ballot provides for a simple majority (30 jurisdictions) of votes cast constituting the denominator for determining the ratification threshold needed to pass a ballot (three fourths of 30 rather than three fourths of 58). This would mean that 23 jurisdictions (75% of the 30 casting a vote) could impact the Agreement affecting 35 other members. What we would recommend are three things: First, language that establishes that any jurisdiction prohibited from voting be removed from the “membership count” in determining the threshold needed to ratify a ballot. Second, language which requires a minimum of a super majority (three fourths of the membership) must vote. Therefore, a minimum of 44 jurisdictions must cast a vote (given a total of 58 eligible jurisdictions). This would result in needing 33 affirmative votes to ratify proposed language; a clear majority of the membership. Lastly, the current proposal does not spell out what happens if the minimum number of votes cast is not met (e.g. fewer than 30 votes cast). While it is implied that the ballot would automatically fail, it is not spelled out. This will inevitably lead to the same debate we have right now. Jurisdictions need to be mindful that the Agreement and its accompanying procedural manuals should not be easy to amend. In fact, it should be rather difficult to amend. The current voting rules somewhat prevent a plethora of meaningless (or even harmful) ballots from being presented for consideration. Lowering the thresholds invites a bigger problem than we have right now. For these reasons, Connecticut is opposed to this ballot as written.
GEORGIA	Undecided
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
LOUISIANA	Undecided
MAINE	Undecided	Oregon raises some good points. Non-votes are counted either as no votes or yes votes depending on the specifications of the Agreement.
MANITOBA	Undecided	Both Oregon and Ontario make good points.
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland is opposed to the ballot as presented. As the agreement currently stands, it can be quite challenging to make changes to both the Procedures Agreement and Audit Agreement. We agree that a suspended jurisdiction should not have a right to vote as long as that status stands, and further, that jurisdiction should not be part of the requirement for passage. However, in this proposal, a minority may be able to change the agreement. We are concerned that there is a possibility that a small group (even with a majority of votes cast) could determine the outcome of a measure that would affect all 58 member jurisdictions, even below the total 29 member majority.
MICHIGAN	Undecided	I am torn. On the one hand, I think the ballot could compel jurisdictions that do not vote or otherwise participate in the IFTA ballot process to do so because, knowing that more ballots might pass under the new language (including ones they did not like) and knowing that they could potentially be impacted by the passing of a ballot accomplished by a minority of jurisdictions, they might choose to become more involved in the process--leading hopefully to better outcomes. I also think this would allow the jurisdictions who take the time and trouble to consider, comment and vote on ballots to have essentially a stronger voice in IFTA's affairs--which seems appropriate. But I am concerned that this ballot if passed could potentially mean that a higher percentage of future ballots would pass resulting in the extra work that jurisdictions must engage in at times to implement new ballot language. Given the relatively small amount of revenue from IFTA and the relatively large staff needed to adminster it (in order to meet the 3% audit requirement), it would be difficult to add addtional work or expense to our IFTA unit. So, still undecided.
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Oppose
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri feels jurisidiction should use thier voting priveleges and vote in suport or opposed.
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	We agree with the comments from Oregon.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose
NEW JERSEY	Oppose	We agree with Oregon's comments.
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	NC is undecided on this ballot. We agree that abstaining should not be considered a "NO" vote. However, our research shows that voter participation is relatively strong over the last five years ballots and that this change may have impacted only 2 of the last 19 ballots. Our biggest concern is that by reducing the quorum to 30 (from the current 44), 75% of the needed votes means that only 23 jurisdictions (only 40% of total of 58 jurisdictions) voting in the affirmative could change the agreement, which is significantly less than the current 75% requirement.
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	Oklahoma is undecided on this ballot and looks forward to further discussion. But I would like to offer a suggestion to address the concern that a minority of the member jurisdictions could change the Agreement. The drafters could insert a floor into the ballot without the confusing quorum language. For example, the revised language could read, "In all matters in which a vote to amend the Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual is necessary, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the member jurisdictions that cast a vote is required for ratification. In no case will the Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual be amended without a minimum of 30 affirmative votes." Something like this removes the possibility that a minority of jurisdictions could change Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual. That seems to be a major concern of those who are currently in opposition.
ONTARIO	Support	While preliminary comment periods allow for an “uncertain” position, final voting does not and there are but two choices. To abstain at that time is not a vote, meaning participation is relinquished and only logical that a surrendered vote should no longer count in determining the outcome. There may be a genuine need to abstain when there is a potential for a conflict of interest or if for political reasons a voting member is not permitted to take a position. It is suggested this proposal may result in major changes decided by a minority rather than a full two thirds (or other standard) of the membership. ON also has concerns in this regard but believe by quantifying a lesser number for a vote tally, it will still absolve jurisdictions from casting a vote. As noted in the ATA comment, we need to demonstrate responsibility and cast our vote when the issue arises. If a jurisdiction chooses to abstain and the vote tally is reduced accordingly, they are directly accountable in handing decision making to something less than the full voting membership. Voting is a privilege that comes with certain obligations, such as exercising that vote. Opting out simply because there is not enough interest does little to support the voting concept and perhaps without realizing it, the jurisdiction has effectively cast a vote of no (in most cases). In many environments, voting results are based on the actual number of votes cast. Let us follow suit and allow those who do not wish to cast a vote (even silently as with an abstention) to be removed from the final tally and have the result based on the number of votes actually cast.
OREGON	Oppose	I'm fundamentally opposed for two reasons. First, the purpose of the current policy is to ensure that a majority of the member jurisdictions approves changes to the Agreement. The net effect of this ballot is to create the possibility that a minority of the member jurisdictions that somehow also represents the majority of voting jurisdictions in any particular ballot can effect changes to the Agreement. It should not be the case that a minority of the actual member jurisdictions can change the Agreement. This might seem an unlikely scenario but why create the possbility for such an outcome to occur? The crafters of the existing Agreement no doubt intended to include this protection. Second, I'd suggest the underlying premise is false. "The outcome of any ballot should not be influenced by non-voters.." A non-vote is a vote. It is a "No" vote. There have been occasions on which I have opted to simply not vote for ballots I chose to not support that had not engendered much of a passionate response from me one way or the other. Others may see this differently and I respect that possibility. In the spirit of this election season, I'll just say, "I'm Gregg Dal Ponte and I approve this message."
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose	Pennsylvania opposes and agrees with the comments posted by Maryland and Oregon.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose	PEI opposes this ballot . We agree with Oregon's comments.
QUEBEC	Undecided	First, I agree with Oregon's comments. Second, since I don't have the necessary skills to form an opinion on this ballot, I would like to ask our IFTA Attorneys’ Section Steering Committee to give their legal opinion on this ballot.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
Stakeholders		4-9-2016 ATA - Robert Pitcher It is time for this change in the way IFTA is amended. Although it is important that the Agreement not be amended frivolously, the proposal would in no way allow this to occur. Significantly, however, the proposal would compel every jurisdiction to take responsibility for a definite position on every proposal that comes to a vote. That can’t be too much to ask from a member whose vote helps to determine how revenues from billions of gallons of motor fuel is shared out across North America! 6/6/2016 Sandy Johnson, IAC Chair Support Belonging to an agreement would suggest a commitment to participate in the outcome of changes to the agreement and to take the responsibility for same. Failing to vote is unfair to those who have taken a position of either yes or no. It leaves a hole in the cohesive nature of the IFTA agreement.
UTAH	Oppose	We do not believe that change to the agreement or manuals should be made based on 40% of the total membership. This is an organization with an agreement where a minority of the membership should not change that organization and agreement for the majority. Valid and positive changes should be supported sufficiently to generate adequate votes to pass, by a true majority of the membership.
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Virginia tends to agree with Oregon's observations, but will remain open-minded through the discussion.
WASHINGTON	Oppose	We agree with Oregon's comments.
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose
WYOMING	Support	I agree that the outcome of a ballot should not be influenced by a non-voter. If you want a voice, then vote.

Support: 33
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2016

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	While we would not necessarily change our own process, we do not have an issue with the proposal which will help other jurisdictions and carriers alike.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
LOUISIANA	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MISSISSIPPI	Support
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri supports. The display effective date change will allow Missouri to complete its IFTA Auto Renewal process one week earlier than we have in the past.
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska sees no harm in this ballot but remains unconvinced that this is a problem that needs fixing. Carriers who renew timely already have 3 months to get decals distributed (Dec 1 - Mar 1) and if there is confusion regarding when to display renewed decals because they are sent out early, then simply send them out later.... lets hope this change just doesn't add another month where enforcement is confused. ps Nebraska begins processing renewals Oct. 1, but doesn't send out any renewed decals/permits until the week of Thanksgiving.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
UTAH	Support	We believe this timing change will benefit carriers and our renewal process.
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Support	Support. This is helpful to carriers in general, by allowing carriers to get decals onto vehicles with less fighting with the calendar, weather, and the availability of interstate vehicles operating far from home. For WI this easily outweighs any concerns about the always-tiny percentage that might try to use such a feature in an attempt to operate without current year license.
WYOMING	Support

Support: 11
Oppose: 14
Undecided: 7

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2016

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Oppose
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC believes that jurisdictions’ forgetting to vote, or not caring to vote should not influence the IFTA ballot/decision making process.
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We agree that a jurisdiction that is barred from voting or does not have either a Commissioner or a proxy in place to do so should not be included in the formula used to determine the threshold for ratification of a ballot proposal. However, we still disagree that the denominator used to establish the three fourths threshold should be based on the total number of votes cast. While historically a significant percentage of jurisdictions do in fact vote (over 92% per the authors for the period of 2008 through 2015) and there would appear to be minimal risk in changing this language (since most, if not all, of those eligible to vote do so), we do not believe any changes beyond addressing those barred from voting or do not have a voting Commissioner or proxy in place are needed. We remain opposed to this ballot as written.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support	I support this ballot simply because a vote should be representative of all jurisdictions' actual intent. This cannot be assured when a vote of "no" is automatically "assigned" to jurisidictions that did not vote as is being done today. This ballot also adresses the much-needed "sliding denominator" to represent only those jurisdictions that are eligible to vote, while also providing language to allow for a true "abstention". Simply put, we as voting commissioners have an obligation to review the ballots proposed and cast an informed vote for every ballot presented in order to represent our jurisdiction's true/actual postion on said ballot.
KANSAS	Support
LOUISIANA	Oppose
MANITOBA	Undecided
MARYLAND	Undecided
MISSISSIPPI	Oppose
MISSOURI	Undecided	Our general counsel is currently reviewing the language.
MONTANA	Undecided
NEVADA	Support	This process works well with the IRP ballots as it still requires 3/4 of the votes cast to approve a ballot and make a change to the official language. Unless jurisdictions are required to vote, it is often difficult to get more than 75-80% of the jurisdictions to respond, even during the comment periods. If jurisdictions feel strongly for or against a ballot, they can always lobby other jurisdictions that have not voted to ensure their voice is heard. Nevada's position is if we want to make sure our voice heard, we will vote.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	no change from previous comments
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario recognizes the concern in allowing changes to take place if achieved by less than a full majority of the entire voting membership. The cautionary comments being raised by the ASSC and others opposed to this ballot are not without merit however it is precisely because of this unease that “non-voting” ought to be addressed. In any environment, voting is both a right and an obligation. When a vote is not exercised, a decision has been made to opt out of any subsequent decision making. It is therefore hard to justify including the abstention as part of the overall vote count.
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose	Pennsylvania agrees with the comments made by Utah and opposes this ballot.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose
QUEBEC	Oppose
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Undecided
Stakeholders	Oppose	11/22/2016 - Respectfully submitted by the following members of the IFTA Attorney Section: Jack Frehafer (Pennsylvania), Clark Snelson (Utah) Ed Beaudette (Montana), Kevin Smith (California) and Paul Nilson (WI) The proper context for the IFTA amendment process is based on receiving a certain number of affirmative votes. Jurisdictions gave up a degree of jurisdictional sovereignty in joining the agreement, as written. The Agreement which we agreed to join should be considered to be correct as written; therefore the Amendment Process is designed to ensure that a super majority of affirmative votes of the total membership are cast in order to alter the agreement. We believe the ballot drafters are missing the point: Effecting a change to this very thoughtfully-drafted agreement is not simply about there being more “YES” votes than “NO” votes. The “NO” votes have nothing to do with this. Making an amendment effective is all about garnering the necessary AFFIRMATIVE support to effect a change or addition to the agreement. This goes to the heart of Jurisdictional sovereignty. The individuals voting to change the agreement are not elected representatives of the jurisdiction, but administrative managers appointed by the agency. Joining the agreement as it was drafted at the time required legislative approval. While the agreement provided a mechanism to make alterations in the agreement it was made deliberately difficult to insure that there was overwhelming support for the change. Therefore, it should not be an easy thing to change the agreement. It has been approved by Congress, and it may be amended in the manner approved by congress, however this ballot changes the congressionally approved method by which changes to the agreement may be made. This is the type of change that could lead to a challenge to the validity of the agreement, something that may affect our ability to collect the taxes that we are all relying on. Note that the intent section of this ballot contains the following statement: “The issue of changing the various vote-passage requirements (simple majority, 2/3, 3/4) is NOT being addressed in this ballot.” While those specific provisions (simple majority, 2/3, 3/4) are not being changed, the comment is misleading, the real effect of this ballot is to nullify the purpose of those sections. Example: Suppose we are looking at a provision, such as a full-track ballot, subject to the 3/4 voting provision. It is intended by the agreement that a full-track ballot requires at least 3/4 of the current membership (58) cast an affirmative vote in favor of amending the Agreement. This means 44 AFFIRMATIVE votes are needed to pass the ballot. However, suppose only 35 jurisdictions actually cast a vote. In that case, the 3/4 provision would allow passage of an amendment even if only 27 members cast affirmative votes. 27 votes represent less than a majority of the membership approving an amendment that was not supported by 31 members. This is changing the current requirement of ¾ of the membership voting in the affirmative to effect a change. Finally, we note this ballot lacks justification because it presents no compelling evidence of a problem with the current system. The key example cited, that it took two attempts to make a change is not compelling, but serves simply to illustrate the need to gather affirmative support for a proposed change. There is no evidence given to support the assertion that the “non-voters” simply forgot to vote, or that they didn’t care enough to vote. It is just as likely that the non-voters recognized it is not necessary to actually cast a vote if you do not support an amendment since the rules require a certain number of affirmative votes. Non-voters may have simply concluded that, since they did not support the ballot or felt uncomfortable or uncertain, or unconvinced for the need for a change there was no motivation and hence no compelling reason to cast a vote. The agreement was drafted to require affirmative votes. If a member jurisdiction is convinced of the need for a change that jurisdiction member will cast an affirmative vote. Jurisdictions should not have to be concerned that a substantive change in the agreement could be made by less than a majority of the appointed administrators casting a ballot.
UTAH	Oppose	In consideration of eligibility to vote, we agree that a member that has lost voting privileges should not be included in the base (line 14). We also see circumstances and could agree that jurisdictions that do not have a commissioner or voting member identified at time of a vote be excluded from the base (line 15). We do not support diluting the responsibility of member jurisdictions eligible to vote from exercising their right and obligation to vote. Ballots to change Bylaws, Articles of Agreement or manuals should be well thought out for a positive or necessary change. Those should then be presented to members to gain support of a majority of eligible voting jurisdictions. As has been discussed there will be times when a jurisdiction does not vote by choice, jurisdiction requirement or through the "I forgot" scenario. Also discussed is that some of these non-votes may be due to the fact that not voting is counted a no vote. We believe that this process is preferable to excluding these eligible voting members allowing a passionate minority to implement ballot changes that may lack majority support.
VIRGINIA	Oppose
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose
WISCONSIN	Undecided	Undecided, leaning to oppose. Not seeing a compelling reason to make a change to how the Agreement, our "constitution," is amended. In addition to the stated intent, the practical outcome of the ballot would be to allow a lesser proportion of jurisdictions to adopt changes. The current method is a conservative approach, requiring a set, certain level of support for adoption. Many democratic bodies have a variety of super-majority requirements with the practical outcome of limiting organizational tiller movements.
WYOMING	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Support: 26
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	This ballot makes sense as the number of transmittals sent and received for full participants is easily determined from the Clearinghouse entries.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Iowa supports this ballot as proposed by the APC. Iowa is represented on the APC.
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Support	Maine supports the ballot, but we also concur with MO's and NE's comments.
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	MN has no issues with the proposal language change. This will eliminate an annual task and will be one less compliance item for the clearinghouse participants. An option for consideration is to strike the requirement; reason is the receiving jurisdictions should be monitoring receipt of transmittals and funds from the non-clearinghouse member jurisdictions on a monthly basis. Reconciling a year later is often too late. For jurisdictional accountability the non-receipt of monthly funds needs to be identified each month rather than once a year.
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri suggests removing all language for the number of transmittals sent. If jurisdictions have "read-only" access they should be verifying the monthly carrier transactions and AP/AR amounts. Clearinghouse members should not have to send any "paper" information to non-clearinghouse members when "read-only" access provides the details/information needed.
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Nebraska supports this ballot but has some underlying concerns with including Clearinghouse requirements into the governing documents. If/when all jurisdictions are full participating Clearinghouse members, this section will need to be amended again.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support	Ensures streamlined practices.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 15
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 3

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose	The language in the ballot is confusing. A jurisdiction would report the total number of accounts, but would not report any information regarding how may accounts were suspended, revoked, or canceled. This can be useful information. If the intent of the ballot is to ensure that an account that has been suspended multiple times during a license year is counted as "1" suspension, the ballot does not accomplish this goal. Why not simply state how these account changes should be tallied? Is the intent to report the status of an account as of December 31 of each year or count the number of occurences of suspensions, cancellations, and revocations? Once this has been determined, the ballot language should be written to address the issue. The "History" section refers to removing language from the Articles of Agreement, but the amendments to the ballot are in the Procedures Manual.
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta finds the ballot to be quite confusing. As pointed out by various other jurisdictions that are undecided or oppose the ballot, we think that if jurisdictions find the information on the number of accounts cancelled and suspended / revoked to be useful, then we should work to clarify how those should be reported consistently among jurisdictions, rather than just removing the requirement from the annual report. Alberta does not have concern about providing the information about the processing system but wonders about the usefulnesses of the information.
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC has always wondered about the accuracy and value in reporting the number of accounts cancelled, suspended or revoked accounts during the year (e.g., double and perhaps triple counting individual carriers who are suspended and/or revoked multiple times within a calendar year).
CONNECTICUT	Support	We agree that reporting the number of cancelled, suspended, or revoked accounts for the preceding calendar year is confusing and has resulted in unnecessary duplications. We further agree with those who have questioned the value of this data if it is not accurate. We do not know what specific value disclosing the type or vendor used for administering the IFTA program brings, but the mandating of this type of disclosure does not affect any process nor does it result in additional work or cost to be borne by the member.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Iowa supports this ballot as proposed by the APC. Iowa is represented on the APC.
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Undecided	The requirement is confusing only because jurisdictions count cancellations, suspensions, and revocations differently. What's really needed is better instructions on how to report this information. The real question is "is this information useful to the community?" In the present form, probably not.
MANITOBA	Support	Manitoba agrees with Saskatchewan's comments. We have no issue with providing the name of our IFTA processing system as we feel this is useful information to have.
MICHIGAN	Oppose	The proposed language does not resolve problem.
MINNESOTA	Oppose	The proposal references removing language “during the year”, however that language does not appear in P1110. MN feels that the number of cancelled, suspended, and revoked licensees is useful information if there was a consistent practice in reporting (either a snapshot in time at the end of the licensee year or cumulative throughout the year). Rather than require the IFTA processing system data as a part of the annual report, MN would rather see this information captured outside of the annual report requirement. We question the value of mandating the jurisdictional type of processing system as a data element to the annual report.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Oppose	The History/Digest section is confusing - it references the Articles of Agreement, yet this proposal impacts the Procedures Manual and if talks about removing language "during the year" that doesn't appear in the section to begin with. So for a ballot that is intended to remove confusion - it has just created more! The purpose of the annual report is to provide jurisdiction snapshot information to the reader, therefore, the number of cancelled/suspended/revoked accounts reported by a jurisdiction relative to their active accounts might be interesting information. If the membership feels that processing system information is important, we would not be opposed to capturing that in the annual report.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	We would echo Michigan's comments.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	NC agrees with Quebec in regard that removing the suspended, canceled and revoked accounts doesn't have anything to do with the system (in-house or vendor). What is the purpose of adding what type of system is utilized? Clarifying how to report suspended, canceled or revoked accounts to be consistent would be more appropriate.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario supports the concept but agree there may be need to further clarify language.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose	We agree with Nebraska's comments.
QUEBEC	Oppose	Quebec doesn't see the relation between not reporting the number of accounts cancelled, suspended or revoked with the IFTA processing system. Is it going to be different treatment when Jurisdiction is using in-house instead of a provider ?
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	Saskatchewan supports the idea behind this ballot but the wording could be clearer in section .005 to require not just the total number of accounts but the number of each account status.
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 19
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 6

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	Alabama currently submits demographic data, on a daily, basis to the Clearinghouse.
ALBERTA	Undecided	We agree with New Brunswick.
ARKANSAS	Support	Arkansas agrees with Michigan's comment.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC supports the concept but shares the concerns expressed by others. BC currently updates at 11:00pm each business day (i.e., not weekends or statutory holidays). For future consideration - With the 3 to 4-1/2 hour time difference between coasts perhaps we should be more specific regarding uploads (e.g., between 10PM – 2AM). This would ensure we all have consistent/unchanging demographic data during the day/times when most compliance activities occur.
CONNECTICUT	Undecided	As opined by others, the direct language of the proposal is too restrictive and does not account for possible conditions (e.g. weekends, holidays, system or agency shutdowns, weather or other disasters) which may prohibit a nightly refresh from occurring. We strongly recommend that the sponsors amend the proposal to account for such events which would prohibit a nightly refresh from taking place.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Iowa supports this ballot as proposed by the APC. Iowa is represented on the APC.
KANSAS	Support	Kansas has recently implemented this practice of nightly uploads.
MAINE	Support	Maine supports the requirement that CH demographic changes be uploaded once every 24 hours. Nearly every CH jurisdiction is in compliance with this proposal. NE's comments should be taken into consideration.
MANITOBA	Support	Manitoba agrees with New Brunswick's comments.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota is currently transmitting the licensee demographic data on a nightly basis. The proposed language may be too restrictive by mandating on a “nightly” basis, Minnesota recommends replacing nightly with “daily” or “24 hour”. Also, business days should be clarified to eliminate the requirement on weekends and holidays.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Curious why the term "nightly" basis was used rather than on a "daily" basis. Does that mean you would have to upload your information at night?! What about 5am or 6am? Nebraska does however want to point out that this ballot, along with ballot #1 is troubling because it proposes Clearinghouse requirements in the governing documents. Every time your requirements change - you have to pass a ballot.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided	New Brunswick already performs this practice daily, however this practice is not performed on the weekends as there are no changes to report. We would support the ballot if it was weekdays only and not holidays.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	NC supports this ballot but "nightly" needs to be defined better.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	Agree with New Brunswick's and Quebec's comments
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose	Nightly uploading would place a burden on the jurisdiction which would outweigh the benefit.
QUEBEC	Undecided	We agree with New Brunswick.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	Saskatchewan supports this ballot. The term nightly needs to be defined. We currently upload a file every work day morning.
WASHINGTON	Undecided
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided

Support: 24
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support	We generally support the idea and agree with Quebec that the language can be clarified for the notification to be provided by read only Clearinghouse members to all member jurisdictions.
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	We agree. This proposal removes a redundant and unnecessary task from fully participating members of the IFTA Clearinghouse yet retains a requirement for those that do not.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Iowa supports this ballot as proposed by the APC. Iowa is represented on the APC.
KANSAS	Support	Agree with Missouri's comments.
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri agrees with the changes to the language but suggests we develop a way for non-clearinghouse members to enter the information into the demographic file so that all carrier information is retrievable by the demographic file search functions for members and law enforcement.
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Another ballot that will have to change when all jurisdictions are full participating Clearinghouse members.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support	Ensures streamlined practices.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	The language should be: to send the reports to Clearinghouse member and read only Jurisdictions.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided

Support: 20
Oppose: 5
Undecided: 2

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Oppose	We agree with New Brunswick. We also do not have concerns using standard conversion factors. However, the reporting of LNG in energy equivalent measures adds confusion to reporting and transmittal when all other types of fuel are reported in dollar per gallon, or dollar per litre.
ARKANSAS	Support
Attorneys Section Steering Committee	Support	TO: IFTA JURISDICTION COMMISSIONERS FROM: EDWARD G. BEAUDETTE, CHAIRMAN IFTA ATTORNEY SECTION STEERING COMMITTEE RE: COMMENTS ON ADOPTING BALLOT STBF #2014-05 The IFTA Attorneys Section Steering Committee has been asked to make a formal comment on the adoption of STBF#2014-05 concerning the institution of a standard conversion factor for fuels that are not susceptible to measurement in gallons or liters. The need for this ballot as described in the proposal is to address the fact that the Canadian Province jurisdictions are under a legislative requirement that doesn’t allow measurement referencing energy equivalency units. This has the effect of allowing jurisdictions to use different units or means of measurement that can create inconsistencies in reporting usages across jurisdictions. It appears that the proposed ballot would serve the function of allowing a consistent reporting of the non-standard measurement of certain fuels such as LNG amongst all the jurisdiction while allowing each jurisdiction to comply with their individual laws or rules. This ballot addresses two issues which are of general concern to the Attorney Section. Those are the deference of the Agreement to the sovereignty of the individual jurisdictions while maintaining a consistency within IFTA that allows for clear and accurate reporting amongst the jurisdictions that can be understood and applied in a uniform manner that does not contradict the laws of an individual jurisdiction. While there appears to have been some concern over the details of the conversion factor that is better left to the auditors and accountants to resolve, from a legal perspective, a consistent means of reporting which allows for individual jurisdictions to remain in full compliance with their governing statutes and rules is optimal for addressing these issues in the future. It is always better to have everyone working from the same set of standards. It will eliminate questions and issues related to interpretation in cases where the subject is central to the resolution. It also appears that this ballot failed on its first time through because of a lack of voting rather than significant problems with the concept.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	There are three different units of measures being used for sales of LNG (i.e., straight gallons, diesel gallon equivalents and kilograms). Without LNG conversion factors and a common reporting methodology it is impossible to ensure consistent tax reporting and distribution of taxes between IFTA jurisdictions.
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	While Connecticut respects the position of the sponsors and the comments of the Attorneys' Section Steering Committee, we are concerned that passage of this ballot would result in this jurisdiction holding taxpayers not required to be licensed under IFTA to different standards from those who are IFTA licensees. Accordingly, we are opposed to this ballot.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	This is already in Iowa code 452A.2 (21.b).
KANSAS	Support	This is currently in the Kansas statutes.
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided
MARYLAND	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	We agree with the concept of uniformity, however we believe it will add a layer of complexity for our carriers and is contrary to the method established by the Canadian Federal Government.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	We agree this will at least provide consistency in the methodology used. The differences with the Canadian Federal government is not going to change so it is better to go to a common approach.
ONTARIO	Undecided
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Oppose	Quebec has same reasons as New Brunswick.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
WASHINGTON	Oppose	Washington cannot support this ballot until we have a state standard established.

Support: 15
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 10

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We agree with Nebraska and Kansas.
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	The subject article (R1310) is a core provision of cooperative administration through this Agreement. A jurisdiction that does not audit on behalf of its fellow members should be held accountable if it (the non-compliant jurisdiction) fails to bring itself into compliance. Member jurisdictions rely on base jurisdictions to protect their revenue stream through compliance programs including audits. Failure to do so undermines the purpose of the Agreement.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Appears to further clarify audits.
KANSAS	Undecided	In addition to Nebraska's comments. The ballot is too 'open' ended and criteria needs to be established, regarding what would be considered as 'not auditing on behalf of all jurisdictions'. To what severity, would it take, before a dispute is initiated?
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided
MICHIGAN	Undecided
MINNESOTA	Undecided	This is a very subjective issue due to the fact that the governing documents do not define what is meant by the statement “audit on behalf of all jurisdictions” In addition, this change may be premature based on the pending outcome of the 2014 Proposed ballot #3.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska is undecided but leaning more towards opposition than support. There was concern when the original ballot #1-2009 was passed (the ballot that outlined the process for the PCRC to recommend to the membership that a dispute for non-compliance be brought) that the IFTA community needed to be prudent when affording a committee the same privileges as a jurisdiction when it came to disputes. Those arguments still ring true today. If you haven't done so, I recommend reading the history/digest associated with ballot#1-2009.
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided	We would echo Nebraska's comments.
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Undecided
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	Quebec needs more clarification.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose

Support: 21
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 5

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #7 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta is undecided but tends more to oppose. Our interest calculation and reassessment processing is handled by an area other than the Audit branch. Information about the interest calculation is clearly provided on the notice of reassessment issued. It seems an unnecessary step to go back and have the information in the audit report when the information is provided in an official notice already.
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Undecided	Connecticut already meets the criteria outlined in this proposal. However, we strongly recommend that the Proposed Effective Date be changed from July 1, 2016 to January 1, 2017. By doing so, we would not have two different standards within the same year subject to a Program Compliance Review.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support	Appears to further clarify audits.
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	The interest thru date is not static when the funds are transmitted using A690.600 Option 1, or if the audit is appealed. To clarify the proposal should address the situations in which the audit interest thru date changes. Consideration needs to be given as to sytem programming requirements.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Undecided	Ontario supports the concept but would have to ensure there are no system limitations.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	Quebec needs a system development to respect this ballot.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 18
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 0

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	With most jurisdictions now being full members of the Clearinghouse, the need to share transactional details between themselves has becoming outdated. It is only logical to remove the blanket provision and limit the requirement to those jurisdictions restricted to “read only” Clearinghouse access. Similar administrative amendments are to be encouraged.
OREGON	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
VERMONT	Support

Support: 10
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 4

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Undecided	It seems that P1110.300.005 asks for the total IFTA accounts which includes new accounts, active accounts and accounts that were suspended, revoked and cancelled. Since, it will still be useful to obtain separately the information of the number of accounts cancelled and suspended/ revoked, should P1110.300.010 be retained?
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided
ONTARIO	Support	Sharing information related to account cancellations has limited value in the context of jurisdictional reporting and since the definition of these terms is not consistent throughout the membership, this likely creates confusion when referenced. ON is neutral as to whether there is value in replacing the field with jurisdictional vendor details but agree with removing the requirement to record account cancellations, suspensions, revocations when completing an Annual Report.
OREGON	Undecided
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose
QUEBEC	Undecided
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
VERMONT	Support

Support: 16
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OHIO	Oppose	I believe this ballot is well-intentioned, however the same result can be obtained without the jurisdictions providing full demographic data daily. To clarify, the other agencies that use IFTA data normally request a one-time data load of all demographic data, then require the states to provide the changes (delta) as they occur. The reason why this is significant is the fact that providing a full data dump daily consumes an extreme amount of space in a short period of time. Especially, when some of the the larger IFTA jurisdictions have over 9,000 active accounts. It makes more sense to pass the delta values rather than a complete daily dump of all demographic information.
ONTARIO	Support	Without specific standards establishing the timeliness of licensee data, it is challenging to expect jurisdictions to rely on the Clearinghouse for such information. Consequently it falls back to direct jurisdictional contact to obtain data confirmation resulting in additional time and effort for all parties.
OREGON	Undecided
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
Stakeholders		ATA Robert Pitcher IAC Sandy Johnson, Chair Both the ATA and the IAC supports the requirement that a jurisdiction refresh its demographic data daily. If IFTA data is to support real enforcement efforts, it must be accurate and timely.
VERMONT	Support

Support: 15
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta supports the ballot. However, we are just wondering whether the requirement should be for the read only Clearinghouse member to notify all member jurisdictions ( and not just the Clearinghouse member jurisdictions) on their cancelled, revoked and suspended accounts.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	With status reports being available through the Clearinghouse, there is no need for base jurisdictions to share directly with other members. It is reasonable therefore to limit the requirement specifically to those members unable to input data into the Clearinghouse (read-only jurisdictions).
OREGON	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
VERMONT	Support

Support: 11
Oppose: 4
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Oppose	We support the use of standard conversion factors. However, we continue to have concerns in reporting LNG using energy equivalent measures when all other types of fuel are reported in dollar per gallon, or dollar per litre..
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	There are three different units of measures being used for sales of LNG (i.e., straight gallons, diesel gallon equivalents and kilograms). Without LNG conversion factors and a common reporting methodology it is impossible to ensure consistent tax reporting and distribution of taxes between IFTA jurisdictions.
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided
MARYLAND	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	LNG as a fuel source is no longer theoretical and without a standard measurement, product reporting will be inconsistent and tax inaccurately apportioned. We understand the concerns in appearing to overstep jurisdictional sovereignty but also recognize this proposed measurement is specifically for the purpose of transmitting a proportional tax value within the confines of IFTA reporting.
OREGON	Oppose
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Oppose
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
Stakeholders		ATA Robert Pitcher Strongly supports this ballot. This proposal represents unfinished business for IFTA in the area of reporting the use of natural gas. Two years ago, the IFTA membership adopted a standard conversion factor for reporting compressed natural gas (CNG). Although the use of CNG in qualified motor vehicles across jurisdictional lines is not yet common, it is increasing rapidly, and it was clear to the membership that a uniform conversion factor for CNG - which cannot be measured in liquid gallons or liters, since it is not a liquid – was necessary if fuel use tax was to be successfully imposed. An energy equivalent standard was chosen for IFTA because that’s the way CNG is commonly sold for highway use. IFTA’s CNG standard does not affect any jurisdiction’s tax rate; it is required solely for IFTA reporting, not for other purposes. The standard for liquefied natural gas (LNG) proposed by this ballot is similar in concept. The use of LNG across state and provincial lines is also at a low level, but increasing rapidly and, like CNG, although for different reasons, LNG cannot be measured directly in gallons or liters – it’s too cold for volumetric meters to work. Instead, LNG must be measured by weight (mass). Once again, an energy equivalent conversion standard is proposed for LNG, as it was for CNG, because that’s how LNG for highway use is being sold. And, once again, the adoption of the proposed standard for LNG will not affect any jurisdiction’s tax rate or its ability to change that rate – it is only for IFTA reporting purposes. It should be noted that about half of the states, as well as the U.S. federal government, have adopted for their taxation of LNG the proposal contained in this ballot proposal.
VERMONT	Support

Support: 8
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 6

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta has the same comments as Ontario.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided
MARYLAND	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Undecided	It’s hard to ascertain from the ballot narrative exactly why there is a need to add this particular provision to the numerous options presently available to the PCRC for this purpose. ON echoes the comment previously posted by KS and question what exactly is meant by “not auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions.”
OREGON	Oppose
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
VERMONT	Support

Support: 12
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 3

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #7 - 2015

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta continues to be undecided about the ballot and tends more to oppose. Our interest calculation and reassessment processing is handled by an area other than the Audit Branch. Information about the interest calculation is clearly provided on the notice of reassessment issued. It seems an unnecessary step to go back and have the information put on the audit report when the information is provided clearly in an official notice already.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	Should the proposed effective date be changed to 1/1/17 (per CT 1st comment period) about not having two different standards within the same year subject to a PCR?
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	There is merit in helping to clarify the method used for interest calculations arising from licensee audits. Although our jurisdiction is currently unable to include a “thru date” in ON audit reports, we will shortly be migrating to another platform allowing for this additional field. We also support the QC comment in amending the effective date to the start of the calendar year.
OREGON	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	Need to change the proposed effective date from July 1st, 2016 to Jan.1st, 2017.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
VERMONT	Support

FTPBP #3 2014

FTPBP #3 2014

Support: 12
Oppose: 20
Undecided: 7

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose	Alabama prefers that IFTA and IRP peer reviews be conducted at the same time. This is a more efficient use of human resources.
ALBERTA	Oppose	Alberta prefers to leave the compliance review period as is since it results in less administrative burden on the jurisdictions.
ARIZONA	Oppose	Arizona agrees with New Hampshire's comments.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support	We support this ballot but believe New Hampshire�s comments are worthy of research. Perhaps IFTA can look at jurisdictions that are compliant with all cited articles in R1555 as being entitled to a five year review period, whereas jurisdictions found to be in violation of the articles contained in R1555 should be required to undergo more frequent reviews.
IDAHO	Oppose
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Undecided	Having the IRP & IFTA review cycle consistent is preferable, so I would oppose this ballot. The Board tasked the committee to determine if the �review process� should be modified to better serve the membership. It�s not clear in this ballot, how moving back to the 4 year cycle will accomplish this?
KANSAS	Oppose	Kansas understands the need for the Compliance Reviews - However changing the review period to 4 years would create additional administrative burden.
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided
MARYLAND	Support
MASSACHUSETTS	Oppose
MICHIGAN	Oppose
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Rather than change the compliance review years, Minnesota feels it may be beneficial for the membership to consider evaluating the value of the compliance review program as it exists today. This may be an opportunity to revise the program due to the electronic transmittal of funds and audits. We now have the ability to quickly identify transmittal noncompliance, fuel tax rates, number of audits and each jurisdiction reviews of audits conducted on their behalf. The review can be continual for all jurisdictions in many of the compliance areas. Jurisdictions found in noncompliance to critical compliance requirements could be reviewed more often vs waiting for the 5 year cycle.
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri supports. Since IRP was unable to pass language for joint IRP/IFTA reviews, changing the cycle back to a four year cycle allows PCRC to promote compliance in a more timely manner.
MONTANA	Oppose	A five year cycle is adequate to ensure compliance. Continue to work on alligning IRP and IFTA peer review cycles.
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska can see benefits to both leaving the cycle as is - for example, the 5th year non-review year provides an opportunity for the PCRC to finalize any reviews from the previous years and begin a new cycle with a clean slate. However, if the PCRC committee feels that returning to a 4-year cycle which aligns with the 4 regions provides a greater benefit, we would be okay with that.
NEVADA	Support	Although Nevada supports reducing the compliance review cycle back to 4 years, we also agree with the comments from MN and OK; and believe there are more rapid and efficient ways to address jurisdictional non-compliance and it should be considered in the near future.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	New Hampshire is opposed on this ballot. It allows the PCRC to review jurisdictions to determine non-compliance in a more timely manner. However, I would propose risk based approach. Jurisdictions with a good to excellent compliance reviews be allowed to stay at five years while jurisdictions with poor or critical compliance reviews go to a three year compliance review. By making everyone go to four years it seems like your are penalizing the jurisdictions with good complliance reviews.
NEW JERSEY	Oppose
NEW MEXICO	Oppose	It should be left as is.
NEW YORK	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Oppose	In agreement with New Hampshires comments. Audits should be selected based on risk as opposed to a strict time schedule
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	We are of mixed opinion on this ballot. On one hand we support the 5 year cycle to be consistent with IRP and to avoid concentrating on just IRP or IFTA audits at then end of a cycle. Having said that, we are also concerned that 5 years is too long a period of time in which to identify a non-compliant jursidiction. In reality it might be 8 years or more before action is taken by the non-compliant jurisdiction to correct it's deficiencies. And I suggest the biggest concern is about a jurisdiction that is not meeting it's 3% audit requirement. An amendment that would trigger a review of a jurisdiction after two successive years of not meeting their 3% target might address the concerns. This review would only be concerned with the audit % requirement and would force a jurisdiction to demonstrate corrective action on this sooner rather than later.
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	Rather than changing the review cycle back to 4 years, I would rather see the PCRC work on developing methods (probably needs to be balloted) to use the Clearinghouse and other data sources to make compliance review a more continual process. For example, if a jurisdiction is perpetually late funding there obligations or conducting their fair share of audits, why should the rest of the jurisdictions have to wait years for that to be formally dealt with?
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Oppose	In general, I oppose changing back. For the most part, Oregon conducts IFTA and IRP audits together, and maintaining a 5 year review period for both enables us to balance the audit requirements from year to year. If IFTA�s review was 4 years and IRP�s 5, we may end up having to conduct IFTA-only or IRP-only audits if running behind the required audit requirement.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	Pennsylvania supports the 4 year compliance review.
QUEBEC	Oppose	With the electronic audit, Quebec has hard time scanning the documents and feeding them to IFTA Inc. It takes a lot of time to do that. We should leave them to 5 years.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose	Rhode Island would prefer to leave the review cycle as it is.
SASKATCHEWAN	Oppose	Saskatchewan agrees with Alberta's comments.
TENNESSEE	Undecided	The administration side supports this ballot. Our audit side has the following comments: I think the five-year cycle for Peer Reviews should remain the same. Since reducing them to a four-year period would increase the frequency of gathering records to present to the Peer Review Team, as well as, the additional time dedicated to the new proposed cycle.
UTAH	Oppose	Utah is a combined shop, we would prefer to have the opportunity to have a joint IFTA/IRP audit.
WASHINGTON	Undecided
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	I can support the ballot but I would prefer both IFTA and IRP peer reviews to be conducted at the same time.

Support: 23
Oppose: 10
Undecided: 6

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	Agree with Oregon and Nova Scotia's comments.
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	While we do believe that keeping licensees informed is important, we question whether it is a critical component of administering taxes on behalf of fellow member jurisdictions. Since non-compliance with the articles cited in R1555 could lead to the expulsion of a member, we question whether that is what the sponsor intended. Implementation of this language could lead to unintended consequences. We could support this ballot if the reference to R360 was removed.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Oppose	Oppose as written � Section R360 is clear and specific on the items of non-compliance, however Section R1310 is not and is wide open to interpretation. I suggest they clarify R1310 to include more specifics or omit it from this ballot at this time.
KANSAS	Undecided	Kansas agrees with Oregon's comments.
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland is concerned with the potential increased responsibility to notify carriers with any changes. This ballot would likely add to paper fulfillment obligations which are already excessive and financially burdensome.
MASSACHUSETTS	Oppose
MICHIGAN	Undecided
MINNESOTA	Support	These two areas R360 and R1310 are broad provisions, which are subject to different interpretations. These requirements are not defined because they are difficult to define. The finding is based on information found during the review leading to a decision based on judgment and discretion. Minnesota feels and trusts the dispute resolutions process gives all parties their due process.
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri supports. Propsed language to amend R1555 supports a charge by the Board to strengthen the compliance review process.
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Support	Although the inclusion of such broad provisions of the agreement, (R360 and R1310) is worrisome, Nebraska trusts that the entire process will provide the appropriate due process for the jursidictions.
NEVADA	Support	Nevada believes if a section of the Agreement requires a jursdiction to complete a function by using the words "must" or "shall" the jurisdiction should be held accountable if it is not done. Therefore, if it is a requirement, it should also be eligible for submission to the DRC if continued non-compliance remains. This ballot is not adding requirements to jurisdictions, it is only making these infractions subject to DRC action when non-compliance is not corrected.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose
NEW JERSEY	Oppose	I am in agreement with the comments posted by both Connecticut and Oregon.
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEW YORK	Oppose	The phrase "not auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions" needs to be expanded upon to provide more clarity as to the committee's intent.
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	It appears that some of the measures in R1555 could be subjective and subject to different interpretations.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided	We agree with Oregon's comments and believe what constitutes "not auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions" requires clarification.
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	I am not sure what problem we are trying to solve here. I understand and appreciate the PCRC's effort but would like more information about how some jurisdictions lack of compliance with R360 is effecting tax payments to the jurisdictions. I also agree with other comments about including Section R1310 in R1555. "Auditing on behalf of all jurisdictions" is a subjective term that could cover a vast range of issues. This has the potential to call everything about a jurisdictions audit program into question.
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Undecided	I recommend a No vote unless they define what they will use as criteria in judging whether a jurisdiction is �auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions� and that we agree that it is a reasonable definition.
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose	Agree that the definition of "not auditing on behalf of all member jurisdictions" is too subjective. Further, this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Oppose	This language is not specific enough to avoid more confusion.
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support	I agree. Jurisdictions should be required to provide licensees with complete and current info and all audits should be conducted on behalf of all jurisdictions.

Support: 8
Oppose: 24
Undecided: 5

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided
ALBERTA	Oppose	We appreciate the efforts from the Audit Committee on the proposed ballot. However, like many other jurisdictions, we find that the ballot is too long and may be better broken down into several ballots. We have a few other comments on some general concepts: While there are definitions on "must", "should", why is there no definition for "shall"? Or are these definitions required at all? R730, line 68. We like the comment, however, the licensee should be required to provide books and records in a format that is auditable by the base jurisdiction. R740 generally looks good although it is silent on who has the ownership of the GPS data We would welcome a comment that it is the responsibility of the licensee to obtain the data from the GPS service provider and not the base jurisdiction. R1370 may be too restrictive. An audit findings letter and a management letter may be provided instead of an audit report.
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We also applaud the Audit Committee and the I-CAWG for the hard work and efforts. We oppose this ballot on three basic and several specific issues. First, the proposal of a ballot this comprehensive with so many language changes runs a great risk of either changing the intent of such language or will result in unintended consequences. It is simply too much to evaluate and assess for its propriety without bearing a significant risk if it were to pass. Second, the proposed change to the effective meaning of the words "must," "shall," or "will" versus words such as "may" or "should" is of great concern. Words such as "may" and " should" are dissimilar from and do not carry the same force and effect as the words "shall" or "will." There are any number of reasons why the drafters of this Agreement separated actions, policies, and procedures into mandated and non-mandated actions. This change makes actions once deemed non-mandatory -- compulsory, thus adding more subjectivity, levels of complexity and the risk of unintended consequences to the compliance review process; unnecessarily so in our opinion. Lastly, we believe jurisdictions generally do a very good job with the audits they conduct. Jurisdictions trust each other and recognize that there will be nuances in the way audits are conducted. That trust is evidenced by the lack of disputes (2) in over three decades of IFTA�s existence. We believe passage of this type of language may actually contribute to an erosion of trust because of the increase in subjectivity. We do not agree with the following specific items: � Use of words such as �adequate, sufficient, or appropriate� creates subjectivity (R730) and leaves much open to interpretation. The same is true of the use of the terms �material or materially� in R740. We advise that we refrain from their use wherever possible. � The proposal in R770 appears to dismantle the requirement that the licensee is held accountable (burden of proof) for keeping records that are compliant with the Agreement�s standards. The proposal prohibits the use of the provisions (R770) when records can be audited even though they may be of poor or inconsistent quality. � We disagree with the proposed standards for sampling. This should be left to auditor/base jurisdiction judgment. The proposal invites more subjectivity to the compliance review process. � We disagree with the changes to the notification requirements. The proposed changes place an extra burden on the base jurisdiction to acquire agreement from the licensee or to prove just cause. This is a significant change from current practice. We disagree with the requirement to review and document prior audits. Jurisdictions have already received those audits; the redundant documenting of prior audits is overkill in most cases and brings little additional value to the current case. Jurisdictions have always had the right to contact base jurisdictions with questions; is that existing practice not enough?
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose
IOWA	Undecided	This was certainly a huge undertaking for the committee. There are so many changes we need to look at this closely before supporting or opposing. Need to see some the changes as advised in the other comments. Need to see if modifications can be made to the existing documentation. The ballot will work if passed, it will just take a lot of clarification and interpretation.
KANSAS	Oppose	Kansas see's some good things in here that put into writing what we already do such as month end cutoffs not having to end strictly at the calendar quarter/month end, though it could be taken too far by the taxpayer. They talk about that in section R750. They talk about different cut off periods for miles and fuel , which we also run into. This is potentially allowing for a lot of freedom in record keeping that may not be a good thing. The cut off should fall within the same week that the calendar quarter ends. Section 710 should be more than a record retention section, it needs to be more clear that this also pertains to the time period where assessments, refunds or no change audits are published. Lines 44 -47 take a stab at that. "Trip" should be defined. The 20 percent MPG reduction like the 4.0 should state that it can be done on a quarter by quarter basis. Record keeping often times changes during the course of an audit. According to R1370 we would have to start providing audit reports to the other jurisdictions as soon as the audit goes out the door, like we do with IRP.
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Oppose	The hours of hard work put into this ballot are appreciated. However, overall, Maine does support this ballot. IFTA is a benefit to carriers. They no longer file tax returns with all jurisdictions traveled, but one return with a base jurisdiction. The information needed to file multiple returns has not changed with the filing of one return. The terms currently used in P500 and P600 are in need of modernizing. However, this ballot goes far beyond that need. In multiple places, there are references to the Base Jurisdiction when discussing record keeping, audit, requesting documents, etc. This appears to limit Jurisdictional rights to audit any carrier availing itself of that jurisdictional infrastructure. (Nexus) The rewrite imposes more restrictions on jurisdictions conducting audits and how they interact with taxpayers based in that jurisdiction. More guidelines are need on when a jurisdiction audits a carrier not based in that jurisdiction. This will happen as it happened before IFTA. Although any imposed rules on these audits could put IFTA at odds with the jurisdiction conducting an audit on a carrier with Nexus in that State. After making the statement in R710 that �On request, the licensee shall make such records available for audit�.� The word � audit� should not be used in the records requirement section again. There are clear instructions for the auditor in several places, most dealing with tax paid fuel that should be in the audit manual. Not sure why summaries need to be �demanded by the base jurisdiction� R760. R770 �inadequate Records� should be in the audit manual before A350 MPG/KPL Adjustment. R740.300 and R750.900-Timing of cut off dates for distance reporting and fuel reporting. Timing issues for large carriers may not change mpg/kpl and the resulting liability. But for smaller carriers, the timing of fuel to distance and the taking of tax paid credit could be affected based on this timing differences allowed by these sections. Are we now allowing a carrier to take credit in a jurisdiction with no reported distance? R750.700-alternative fuels are not defined and what is practicable? Bio-fuel production and the records required are regulated by our Revenue department. Do not agree with defining a �must, shall, should, and may� in A100 as a requirement. By having so many of these terms in the audit manual it is driving the jurisdiction to develop the audit program required in A200 to meet these requirements. A reasonable audit for the carrier could be lost as the jurisdiction conducting the audit is more worried about meeting the requirements. It also appears that a �should� or �may� even though explained and accepted by the audit reviewer, could still be found out of compliance by the PCRC. Based on the requirements of A320 evaluation of internal controls sections .400, .500, .600, a determination of the reliability of internal controls would need to be calculated and any testing conducted would be based on the reliabilities of internal controls. This is statistical auditing typically used in financial statement audits, and used to determine the reliability that an error causing a material misstatement may not be found with sampling techniques employed. Not sure how this would be applicable to auditing distance. Could be useful on very large carrier audits; not useful on smaller carriers and should not be a mandate. Requiring sampling of one full calendar quarter for every license year under audit is overkill in most audits conducted. This should be up to the auditing jurisdiction.
MANITOBA	Oppose
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland disagrees with A330 Sampling and Projection. Sampling is meant to perform an audit timely and accurately with a presumed risk. Mandating a block sample of one quarter per year audited will not accomplish either goal. The audit and the internal controls employed by that account must dictate the sample and sample size. This can only be done by the auditor at the time of audit.
MASSACHUSETTS	Oppose
MICHIGAN	Oppose	Appreciate the hard work, however Michigan believes the changes are too many for one ballot and recommends having several smaller ballots.
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Many of the changes proposed address the changes needed for technological advances and clarifies distance and fuel compliance requirements in conducting an audit to ensure payment of a carriers true tax liability. However, Minnesota is unable to support the proposal as presented due to the numerous language changes and the potential for unintended consequences. This proposal is too much to evaluate and access in this short time frame. We recommend that this be broken down into smaller areas, ask for comments and recommendations and then propose a ballot.
MONTANA	Oppose	A100 states that Audit is a critical element of ensuring compliance with IFTA. But in R770 they move away from compliant/non-compliant and move us to adequate or inadequate. If the records are sufficient enough for us to gain reasonable assurance of the taxes paid, we must say the records are adequate and there are no compliance issues or penalties. This decreases compliance and increases the burden on audit. To audit with compliant documents means that we have to review more information and perform additional work. Also A400 states �All communication, both written and oral, must be documented in the audit file.� We have a lot of irrelevant discussions with companies. They need to add some kind of a qualifier to that statement. To document ALL communication is a burden for staff and records maintenance.
NEBRASKA	Oppose	Nebraska appreciates the effort and work of the I-CAWG and generally supports many parts of the ballot, in particular: Section A330 that requires that the sample be from a full quarter, not just a sample from a sample period; and that the audit sections from the Articles of Agreement and the Procedures manuals were moved to the Audit manual. However, our opposition with other changes prevent us from supporting the ballot in its current form. We have identified our issues below: R770.200 We suggest that this section be eliminated. The wording appears to prevent the auditor from making mileage adjustments when the records are classified as inadequate. For example: The auditor classifies the carrier�s mileage records as inadequate. However, during the fuel portion of the audit the auditor finds hundreds of gallons of unreported fuel purchases in several jurisdictions with no reported miles. What is the auditor to do in this situation? 1. Add in the fuel with no jurisdiction miles which would create a tax credit in those jurisdictions? OR 2. Ignore those jurisdictions� fuel and deny the tax paid credit? This is a very common issue found in IFTA audits. Carriers often cannot provide mileage records, but they can usually provide some fuel records. This new wording could result in jurisdictions having a credit even though the mileage records were classified as inadequate, due to having audited tax paid gallons and no audited miles R770.300 We suggest that this section be eliminated. The application of a 4.00 mpg is to cover the information that cannot be verified because the records are poor or of an inconsistent nature. The current A550 does not refer to the 4.00 adjustment as a penalty. A penalty is due to filing a late tax return or owing additional tax found in an audit. R770.100.010 (line 222) We suggest adding the word �or audited�. �reduce the licensee�s reported or audited MPG or KPL, by twenty percent�. To illustrate our point- The carrier has inadequate mileage records, so the auditor accepted the miles as reported. The reported mpg was 5.50. The carrier did provide fuel records, and the audited gallons were greater than the reported gallons. This resulted in an audited mpg of 3.75. In this case there would be no mpg adjustment, since both the 4.00 mpg and the reported mpg (less 20%) are higher than your actual audited mpg. For this reason, we recommend adding in �or audited�. R750.110 (lines 122-124). Suggest the following change: �Retail fuel purchases include all those purchases where the licensee buys fuel from a retail station or from a bulk storage facility dispensing fuel legally within the jurisdiction�s statutes�. If a carrier is withdrawing fuel from a 3rd party bulk tank where the owner cannot legally dispense fuel to other customers; the auditor would not know if the fuel was tax paid, or to what jurisdiction the tax was paid. For example: The carrier being audited fueled their IFTA unit from a mobile bulk tank, located 10 miles from the jurisdiction border. 1^st- What side of the border was the fuel purchased from? 2^nd Was it tax paid? R750.400 (lines 155- 159) and R750.600 (lines 170-177) Suggest adding .020 to R750.400 which says: Bulk withdrawal records that indicate the bulk tank location. We feel bulk fuel withdrawal records should be listed under R750.400. In addition, R750.600.005 states that each bulk withdrawal should list the location of the tank. Since our suggestion includes having the bulk location on the withdrawal log, we then recommend removing R750.600.005. Our thoughts are, you don�t need to list the location of the bulk tank for each individual bulk withdrawal, as long as the withdrawal log itself lists the location of the bulk tank. Suggest adding .025 to R750.400 which says: Bulk storage tank(s) must have a reliable meter to accurately report fuel withdrawn. How can a carrier measure fuel from the bulk tank without a meter, unless they are estimating? We also suggest adding the word �metered� in R750.600.015. �The metered quantity of fuel withdrawn.� R750.500 (lines 161-168) Suggest adding back all of the current R1020 vs. just parts of it. R710 We would like lines 34 through 37 to be removed. We do not think that carriers should be allowed to destroy records after an audit, prior to 4 year record retention requirement. This also may conflict with jurisdictional statutes of record retention. R720 Line 51. We would like the original language from the current A540.200 to be retained. �The audit will be completed using the best information available to the base jurisdiction. The burden of proof is on the licensee�. R740, R750, R760 Lines 108�113, 187-196, 206-212 We feel these sections need to be more consistent with one another. 1. R740.300 (line 108), should be the same proposed wording as R750.900 (lines 187 & 188). This will cover distance as a whole and not just �distance readings�. 2. R740.300 and R750.900 should have the same sub points- ( .005-.020,). We recommend using the wording under R740.300 for both miles and fuel. 3. R740.300.010 (line 111) Suggest changing to the following: �Reflect a consistent cut-off procedure by the license, which is the same for distance and fuel�. It has always been an understanding that you can have an alternative cut off procedure as long as miles and fuel are reported together. 4. R760.200 (lines 206-212) Since this topic has already been covered under the R740 and R750, we do not believe it needs to be repeated here. R750 (lines 115-186) It appears much of the wording in R750 is duplicated and/or in direct conflict with current Article X , which was not eliminated. All of our comments regarding section R750 are made under the assumption that Article X will be eliminated. R750.700 (lines 179-183) We recommend that this section be removed. We do not feel that the requirements for alternative fuels would be any different than for traditional fuels. R1000 Article X Did you intend to eliminate this section? It contradicts much of the proposed language in R750. Deleted A680 Why was this entire section eliminated? Shouldn�t there be some documentation of the auditors work in the auditor�s file? A460.600.005 (line 772) Add the word �narrative�. �The narrative report must indicate the procedures, findings, any requirements to become compliant and any additional information deemed necessary.� Our suggested change mirrors the wording in the IRP. Deleted A710 Since records reviews were approved for the IRP, was there any discussion for doing the same in the IFTA? Deleted P530.200 We recommend this section be added back to the new section R710 Clerical errors found: Line 118. There is an extra comma after the word �and�. Line 302. Should read R1370 and R1390. Not 1370 and 1390.
NEVADA	Support	Nevada has read the comments from other jurisdictions and while we agree there are some areas of the ballot that need to be corrected, we are confident that all material corrections will be made by the ICAWG prior to the second comment period. Nevada believes this ballot goes a long way to bring consistency between IRP and IFTA distance requirements and goes a step further to provide room for changing technologies without requiring a change to the language.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	Too many changes contained in one ballot, very confusing.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	We are opposed for similar reasons as stated by Maine and Nebraska.
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEW MEXICO	Undecided
NEW YORK	Oppose	R760.200 - Variances in fuel and mileage reporting cut-off's, though consistent, could result in increased return exceptions for smaller licensees (ie. mpg exceptions). R770.100 - Believe that the language is too restrictive to base jurisdictions. R700.200 - The records retention requirement of the licensee seems to be diluted by adding this language.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	Like Michigan, NC appreciates the hard work and efforts put into this ballot by the various committees but recommends breaking this ballot into several smaller ballots which could be voted upon separately.
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose	We also appreciate the work done by the Audit Committee. But like many of the other jurisdictions we believe this ballot should be in fact multiple ballots as there are parts which we don't support such as R770.100 while there are many other parts which we do support.
ONTARIO	Oppose
OREGON	Oppose	Overall, I would recommend a No vote: Material Issues: � R740.100 - I would like to see Intermediate Stops as a requirement in manual record keeping processes. (pg 4) � R770.100 � At the least, it sets up a conflict with the Audit Manual Section A550. Read literally, it limits the discretion of the base jurisdiction to use an Industry Average only on specific vehicles and not the fleet as a whole. (pg 7 & 15) � R770.100 � Directs the base jurisdiction to automatically default to 4.0 MPG or reduce MPG by 20% if records not provided within 30 days. Again, a literal reading directs the base jurisdiction to conduct a default audit even if records were provided but after the 30 day deadline, so if they provided records on the 32^nd day, we would still be required to do a default audit? This is language that is in the current version but I still disagree with the wording. (pg 7) � R770.300 � Including the verbiage �or with respect to audits generally� sets up a conflict with Article R1220 Penalties. (pg 7) � A330 � Removed the language about audits being conducted on a sampling basis unless the specific situation dictates otherwise. This language has been beneficial at times when a licensee was insistent on a full audit. I oppose removing this language. (pg 15) � A330 � Requiring at least one full calendar quarter for every year under audit can be hard to meet if auditing large accounts. We would either have to shorten the audit period resulting in less time covered in the audit or audit fewer vehicles, which may result in wide variances in large fleets. (pg 15) Housekeeping: � References to other sections should include the designation �R� or �A� for clarity. (R710 pg 3; R1370 pg 9) � R730 should refer to elements set out in R740, R750 and R760 - not R730, R740, R750. (pg 4)
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	Well-intentioned, but may conflict with some jurisdictions' laws.
QUEBEC	Oppose	Too many changes in one ballot. I agree with Maine and Nebraska.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose	Opposed for many of the reasons stated by Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon.
SASKATCHEWAN	Oppose	As voiced by other jurisdictions this ballot should be divided into smaller workable ballots.
Stakeholders	Support	ATA - Robert Pitcher The adoption of this ballot will serve to modernize and clarify IFTA�s language on audit and record keeping. It will provide a degree of flexibility to licensees without endangering the jurisdictions� ability to conduct thorough fuel use tax audits. And it will render IFTA�s record keeping and auditing rules for licensees� distance accounting very similar and in most instance identical to IRP�s rules. These changes need to be adopted if licensees are not to be faced with different and sometimes conflicting requirements from the two Agreements, and if jurisdictions are not to be required to conduct audits under two different sets of rules. The proposal here alters very little the existing IFTA rules for accounting and auditing for fuel. Some of the other comments posted here observe that this is a lengthy ballot, with a lot of changes. Considering that record keeping and audit is really one large, integrated subject, this is the only manner in which it could be successfully amended: all at once. IRP took this step two years ago, and the new requirements appear to be operating well there. There is no reason to suppose the changes here will not work equally well with IFTA. IFTA needs this amendment if it is to stay current with changing technology and if it is to provide adequate record keeping and auditing guidance to its members and licensees.
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Oppose	Utah agrees with the comments by Kansas and Maine
WASHINGTON	Oppose	The proposed penalty provision appears restrictive. The proposed ballot language actually restricts a state to two courses of action: (1) Fleet level 4MPG OR 20% reduction in MPG OR (2) Vehicle level MPG estimation based upon various criteria. Current IFTA language today allows fleet or vehicle level MPG estimation based upon various criteria.
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided	What is meant in R 740.100 �vehicle tracking system� is this a GPS system? If so, I think it should state so. Not too keen on R 750.800. There may be cases where more evidence is needed. R-750.900 allows deviation from a calendar quarter basis. A carrier should be able to cut off at the end of a quarter. This may be intended for trips that may carry over from one end of a quarter to the next. This section may cause revisions of the audit reports/forms/spreadsheets to see if everything thing required is being included.

Support: 10
Oppose: 22
Undecided: 5

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose
ALBERTA	Oppose	The ballot is unclear and we have the same concerns as Nebraska. Using the same audit period for IFTA and IRP will result in less administrative burden for both the jursidction and the carrier.
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We oppose this ballot due to a lack of clarity as per Oregon�s comments.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided
IOWA	Undecided	This ballot is on the correct path, it just needs further clarification for it to be supported.
KANSAS	Oppose	If read correctly, a jurisdiction could potentially get credit for doing a one or two quarter audit. Shouldn't at least 4 quarters be considered to get credit for an audit?
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Oppose	Maine concurs with Oregon's comments.
MANITOBA	Oppose
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland agrees with Oregon regarding the lack of clarity.
MASSACHUSETTS	Oppose
MICHIGAN	Oppose	Agree with the intent of the ballot, but oppose the current wording.
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Minnesota feels the proposal wording is vague, confusing and open to interpretation. In the current wording we may be opening the door for creative counting to meet the audit quota standards. MN is interpreting that the current proposal would allow a jurisdiction to count an audit if a carrier filed a tax return for one quarter. Citing examples for illustration purposes is helpful and assists in clarification. We recommend a change to read �To qualify as an audit for the purposes of A310 an audit shall cover at least four consecutive quarters.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose	� The recommended changes they are recommending are convoluted and do not resolve the concern. A simple change such as replacing �license year� with 4 consecutive quarters or 12 consecutive months would provide greater flexibility.
NEBRASKA	Oppose	Nebraska does not support the ballot as currently written and offers the following alternative for your consideration: A300, A310 Number of Audits Lines 29 - 32: To qualify as an audit for the purposes of A310 an audit shall cover at least four consecutive quarters. The four consecutive quarters that a member jurisdicion has a right to audit would include any four consecutive quarters where a license was or should have been in force. Lines 32 (beginning with This does not preclude...) through 35 remain unchanged. For jurisdictions that audit IRP and IFTA, it is not uncommon to audit four quarters that correspond to the IRP July - June reporting period (3rd and 4th quarter of one license year and 1st and 2nd quarter of the following license year). By replacing the proposed language with four consecutive quarters jurisdictions have the flexibility to audit a calendar year or some other 12 month period, provided the audited quarters are consecutive. Further, Nebraska does not support the idea that jurisdictions can count a one quarter audit as an audit for reporting purposes.
NEVADA	Undecided	Nevada agrees with the comments made by Oregon. However, we believe an "audit" of less than 4 quarters should be permitted provided the jurisdiction covers all of the auditable quarters in the license year. This addition prevents a carrier from base jurisdiction hopping. If the jurisdiction follows all the same procedures for an audit, sampling, internal control evaluation, opening/closing conferences, etc., it should not matter if the carrier was in business for one quarter or all four quarters of the licensing year. A sample within a licensing year is only one quarter of the four anyway. Therefore, it should not matter if all auditable quarters within a license year, or all four quarters of a licensing year, or four consecutive quarters are selected, the amount of work to conduct the audit is the same.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	We support the intent of the ballot, however the wording is confusing.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	We are opposed for the similar reasons cited by Maine and Nebreska.
NEW JERSEY	Oppose	I support the intent however I am in agreement with others that there needs to be some clarification.
NEW MEXICO	Undecided
NEW YORK	Oppose	Agree with the intent however the wording is confusing.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose	We oppose the ballot as currently written. We find it confusing. An example of how it currently works as compared to how it will work would be most beneficial.
ONTARIO	Oppose
OREGON	Oppose	I recommend a No vote. I don�t believe the changes are clearly worded and may introduce unintended consequences. � ��an audit shall cover all quarters available within at least one license year for which a member jurisdiction has the right to audit.� I�m not sure what that means. There is no statute of limitations regarding how far back a jurisdiction may audit in the Agreement. If Oregon has an administrative rule determining that we can audit back 4 years from the filing of the tax return, does this language then REQUIRE us to audit all quarters of that license year? � A310.100 is not clearly worded. Suggest �For a jurisdiction which has undergone a program compliance review, the required number of audits is determined by subtracting the number of new licensees per P1110.300.025 from the total number of IFTA accounts per P1110.300.005 and multiplying the result by 3 percent. (Reference to P110.300.025 is incorrect in the ballot.) � A301.200 ��multiply the total number of IFTA accounts per P1110.300.005 by 3 percent.� (Reference to P111.300.005 is incorrect in the ballot.)
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided
QUEBEC	Oppose	wording is confusing, need some clarification.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose	The intent of the ballot is good but the current wording is confusing.
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
TENNESSEE	Support
UTAH	Oppose
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support

Support: 13
Oppose: 6
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We do not understand why R360 is added as a reason that a member will be subject to the dispute resolution process..
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We understand the intent of this ballot, but still disagree with the inclusion of Article R360 as part of this proposal. While we do agree that providing information to licensees is important, we are concerned that a failure to do so could rise to the level of a referral to the Dispute Resolution Committee by the membership. Such referrals may result in penalties assessed against a member jurisdiction up to and including a resolution for expulsion; however unlikely that may be. Since IFTA is an agreement between member jurisdictions, we are concerned that a member could find itself subject to penalties for a citing that is not directly related to the jurisdiction to jurisdiction relationship. We do agree, however that inclusion of Article R1310 is consistent with the overall mission of IFTA.
IOWA	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MINNESOTA	Support
NEVADA	Support	Nevada believes it is not only important to keep the licensee apprised of changes in the Agreement, it is our responsibility. Likewise, we also believe Jurisdictions should be accountable for auditing on behalf of all jurisdictions. Therefore, we are in support of this ballot.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose	Pennsylvania opposes this ballot proposal.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
TEXAS	Oppose	It's still not clear whether providing information through a website satisfies the notification requirement. Texas can recommend supporting this ballot if Section R360 is deleted. Adding R360 requires the IFTA jurisdictions be reviewed to their responsibility to notify their licensees of all the current and amended requirements of IFTA.
UTAH	Oppose

Support: 12
Oppose: 9
Undecided: 3

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support	Alabama agrees this ballot was a substantial but necessary undertaking. It brings consistency to licensees as related to IFTA and IRP distance record keeping requirements, while providing for comparable actions regarding those licensees that do not maintain adequate records. Additionally, it promotes procedural consistency among our audit staff as they endeavor to conduct joint audits.
ALBERTA	Oppose	We thank the committee members for their hard work on the ballot. However, we would also appreciate comments from the IFTA Attorney Section first. It will also be helpful is there are reasons provided section by section on why changes are made to that section (is it just wording change or is it a more substantial matter) so that we can better understand why the changes are necessary to that paragraph or section. We generally find that the ballot does not provide enough for auditor judgement, or consideration of internal control. Or may be the language does not relfect that. We think that the sampling requirement for one full calendar quarter under A330 may be overly onerous and do not support that. We are also wondering how much is considered as enough on the discussion of sufficient and appropriate audit. We also wonder why a rewrite is necessary when things are working. If there are particular areas that require attention, may be we can work on just that portion, The current proposed ballot opens up a lot of questions without us understanding why the changes are particularly necessary and some that we do not agree with.
ARIZONA	Support	Arizona fully supports this ballot. None of the changes in this ballot are "showstoppers" for Arizona.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	While we oppose this ballot, before presenting our reasons for that opposition we must credit the sponsors for the vast amount of work they have done on this proposal; including making certain changes after the Annual Business Meeting. There are specific items we oppose; however we first wish to offer that there isn't any evidence whatsoever that IFTA's audit program is so irrevocably broken that it warrants this complete re-write. IFTA has worked well for better than thirty years (there have been but two disputes related to an audit conducted by a base jurisdiction). Updating the recordkeeping requirements is a worthy venture as the distance recordkeeping required for IFTA should closely mirror that of IRP; however this ballot goes far beyond that. Licensees that are concerned about how a base jurisdiction's auditor discharges his or her duties have multiple options available to them to appeal such actions or audit results. Every jurisdiction has an appeals process, IFTA Articles of Agreement R1450.200 permits a licensee to directly appeal an audit assessment to any or all affected jurisdictions in addition to the base, and, if all administrative remedies have been exhausted in the base jurisdiction, the licensee may levy a complaint in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Process. To date, and to our knowledge, the provisions of R1450.200 have not been exercised and there has been no complaint issued under the provisions of the Dispute Resolution Process by an IFTA licensee. More specifically, this ballot introduces several theoretical and less than quantifiable terms to the governing documents which could pose a problem for jurisdictions and carriers alike. Terms such as "adequate, appropriate, slightly, materially, and sufficiency" cannot be clearly defined; thus the actions or expected requirements that follow those terms cannot really be quantified and thus become subject to little more than opinion. This could very well lead to a deterioration of the objective of uniformity among members, a weakening of the audit program overall, erosion of trust among members, and an open invitation to greater numbers of protested audits which may find their way into the judicial system. Do we really need to bring greater subjectivity into the governing documents? The current language provides for a significant amount of auditor judgment and that existing language has served us well for better than thirty years. For these reasons, this jurisdiction has urged the sponsors (in many venues) to ask the Attorneys' Section Steering Committee to review and comment on this proposal. Certainly the ASSC has access to a vast network of attorneys (58 jurisdictions) involved in not only litigation, but the crafting of statutory language. We cannot help but believe that the opinion of the attorneys as it would relate to the construction of the ballot, whether it conflicts with other sections of the Agreement or its mission, whether the use of certain verbiage could lead to unintended consequences, and whether such language is sustainable in court would be of great value to the voting Commissioners. As of this writing, we have seen no evidence of the attorneys' opinion. Certainly, each jurisdiction seeks the assistance of its attorneys when crafting proposed legislation. This ballot is not a simple technical or procedural change; it is very comprehensive, which begs for a more thorough review. We believe the proposal is worthy of that review by our legal community. We understand and respect the great desire to implement language that mirrors what is in the IRP; but we believe moving more deliberately to ensure that we get it right rather than to simply "get it done" is the best course of action for this organization. The sponsors have stated that this proposal has been many years in the making; is waiting until all parties (e.g. lawyers from the member jurisdictions solicited by the ASSC) have weighed in on it and a more thorough dialogue takes place going to cause the audit program for IFTA to collapse because it is not absolutely parallel with IRP? We doubt it. We strongly recommend that the sponsors withdraw the proposal and open the dialogue to include attorneys, administrators, audit managers, and yes, industry representatives, to result in revisiting this issue after the language (in whatever form it takes) has been fully vetted by all stakeholders. From there, we can all vote for a ballot proposal that we know has been fully examined and evaluated.
IOWA	Support
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Minneosta feels the updating the recordkeeping requirements is a necessary venture as the distance recordkeeping required for IFTA needs to match IRP; however Minnesota feels this ballot went to far and changed itmes that do not need changing. This ballot introduces several theoretical and legal issues to the governing documents which may pose problems for jurisdictions. R305:This provision will be cumbersome to administer and difficult to determine distance and fuel purchased for an unlicensed vehicle. Minnesota questions the legal authority of a jurisdiction to assess and collect any fuel taxes from a "person required to be licensed." R710: Provision seems to be a conflict between the time records are retained and the base jurisdiction laws. R750.600: Does this mean that a leased on driver with their own IFTA license is allowed to report a tax paid fuel from the lessor's bulk tank if the lessor can not legally sell bulk fuel. R760:Summaries are required for IRP and recommend the same wording for IFTA. R1390: What happens if a jurisdiction requests a reexamination after the licensees 30 day appeal period, does the 30 day appeal period start over again after reexamination. A310.100 "the auditor must identify, and document in the audit file the licensee's vehicles operated in the audit period". What does identify mean? A360: appears to now restrict the creation of an error factor to reduce fuel.
NEVADA	Support	Nevada has been an active participant for many years through both the IFTA Audit Committee and ICAWG. The changes presented to the Membership through Ballot 3 are the results of hundreds of hours of collaboration with several administrators and auditors from every region of membership. The ICAWG was comprised of auditors, managers, industry reps, an assistant commissioner, and board members. Throughout the process, participants have reached out to member jurisdictions expressing concerns and have made every attempt to address those concerns. Nevada believes the document before the membership brings consistency both to the audit program and to the record keeping requirements for the licensees. The language used in the ballot is standard among the auditing profession and does not skew the quality of an audit. Auditor independence and judgment are vital to any audit program. Nevada believes this ballot accomplishes that while still maintaining the integrity of the taxes due to each member jurisdiction; and encourages the other jurisdictions to support ballot 3.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	At the annual business meeting it was requested by the majority of the voting membership that this ballot be vetted by the IFTA Attorneys Section Steering Committee. To this date there is no comment or indication from the Attorneys Section regarding their postion on this ballot. For the same reasons cited by the State of Connecticut the State of New Hampshire does not support this ballot.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	The proposed language does not change the way audits are conducted. The proposed language provides guidance, and better uniformity but does not diminish or remove the need for auditor judgment. Distance requirements would mirror those of IRP. This is important for both the jurisdictions and industry, since both programs audit for distance. Electronic record requirements will also be updated by replacing the outdated and confusing language that currently exists. The proposed language does not change the fuel record requirements. Concerns about auditors being required to use judgement about adequacy of records are misplaced. Auditors have been exercising the same kind of judgement about “materiality” for decades and no great calamity has befallen us. The proposed language goes the extra step of providing guidance in determining the adequacy or inadequacy of the records. Auditors will need to continue to exercise sound judgment in making a determination just as they do currently. Also, the proposed language promotes uniformity when records are determined to be inadequate. The language provides for uniformity in sampling while still allowing the auditor to determine at what point sampling can be discontinued. Terms used in the proposed language are terms that are used throughout the auditing profession, including compliance auditing. Some of these same terms are used in other sections of the IFTA documents.
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	At this time Pennsylvania remains undecided on FTPBP #3.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	I would like to hear from the IFTA Attorneys first.
RHODE ISLAND	Undecided
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
Stakeholders	Support	ATA The industry strongly supports this ballot, which makes it easier for IFTA licensees to find the rules for record keeping and audit, and to understand those rules when they find them. The improved organization and clearer language which the ballot brings to these provisions of the Agreement should improve industry compliance. Moreover, the changes to the record keeping requirements in the ballot make IFTA’s rules virtually the same as IRP’s rules, as far as distance accounting goes. Given the IRP’s new rules appear to be working well, this is a necessary step for IFTA, since it is burdensome for IFTA licensees who are also IRP registrants to keep what are essentially the same records in two different ways. It is good as well that the ballot does not change IFTA’s rules for fuel accounting in any significant way. Those requirements are satisfactory and well understood by licensees. Finally, the industry notes with appreciation that the drafters of Ballot 3 have accommodated the more substantive of the comments made on the ballot during the course of the year, through clarifying changes to the language. Industry Advisory Committee Sandy Johnson, Chair The heart of IFTA lies in cooperation not only between jurisdictions but also between jurisdictions and industry. It is the only tax program in North America of this kind. The fact that it has survived for some 30 years now, is significant in itself, and in spite of the occasional ups-and-downs it works remarkably well overall. People are still getting their lettuce, car parts and chemicals – although hopefully not in the same truckload. Those of us who have been around for decades can attest to the fact of the blood, sweat and tears which have gone into the development and ongoing management of this program. It didn’t happen overnight and there were lots of stops and starts along the way. There is a long history and an IFTA philosophy. If you are new to IFTA, you may not fully understand this philosophy and the importance of embracing the cooperative nature so critical to IFTA’s success. IFTA isn’t perfect. It will never be perfect, but it is better than anything else that came before it. The changes to the agreement through the I-CAWG initiative are necessary. IRP has already made these changes which, after two years, seem to be working well. Without these changes, industry is faced with complying with opposing legislation. When that happens, both government and industry are at a disadvantage. IFTA is critical to keeping milk in our fridge and clothes on our backs. I-CAWG might not currently meet your ideal situation, but it is cooperation that has gotten us this far and it is cooperation that will fuel the continued success of IFTA for years to come. It is imperative that you vote yes to this ballot. Gary Bennion Con-way Inc. From an industry perspective, the revision of parts of the Agreement and Audit Manual was a necessary project which has increased the clarity for licensees and for auditors. The revision clarifies and brings into one place the record-keeping requirements of a licensee for distance and fuel, also taking into consideration newer technologies. It has also clarified some of the language surrounding audits and the communication relating to them. Concerning audit assessments and the lack of records, some language was added in the attempt to increase the tools an auditor may employ, depending on the type and circumstances of the licensee. These were the focus areas. The project has not changed the intent of the Agreement, nor has it changed the way that auditors may go about their work. It has not relieved the licensee of any of its responsibility to keep records sufficient to support accurate reporting of fuel and mileage. Seven active jurisdictions were represented on the working group and the language has been discussed in several meetings and in two webinars. Based on comments made in those meetings, during and following the webinars, and in other communication, several changes have been made to address specific concerns. Some opposition appears to be raised out of the fear of change, not based on specific language or referencing. However, this project was initiated based on a need for clarifications expressed by the Board and the Audit Committee, which we believe has been accomplished. We believe, as an industry, that this ballot #03-2014 fulfills its given purposes of clarity and simplification while keeping all of the intents and requirements intact. We encourage the support of each jurisdiction.
TEXAS	Oppose	I know a lot of time and effort went into this ballot. There are some areas that could be changed to benefit the auditors but there are also areas of IFTA that do not need to be changed and this causes my opposition.
UTAH	Oppose
Working Groups	Support	I-CAWG 10/31/2014 The I-CAWG appreciates the acknowledgment of its efforts and would like to briefly respond to the current comments. Clear record keeping requirements that address today's technology should positively impact licensee/jurisdiction interactions and provide support to licensees in their efforts to maintain adequate records. As with all living documents, change is both a necessary and logical process to provide effective guidance to licensees regarding record keeping requirements, clarify language utilized by jurisdictions in the conduct of audits, provide additional tools for jurisdictions to use during audits, and enhance uniformity in audit reports and sampling procedures, which is what Ballot 3 does. The proposed changes do not impact potential disputes. The terms labeled “theoretical” are currently used within the confines of the IFTA governing documents. For example, “sufficient” and “material” are referenced in R209.300. The term “adequate” is referenced in P570.500 and A550.100. “Slightly” is in the proposed ballot twice (R740.300 & R750.900); it is used correctly in those instances by allowing a small degree of deviation from the norm. Appropriate and sufficient are prominently utilized in relation to audit evidence. Granted, many examples are from financial accounting, but the terms and their relevance to what we do in audit are on point. The Google results for "appropriate and sufficient AICPA" are extensive. In closing, the Chair of the Audit Committee has requested that the ASSC confirm that the intent of the ballot has been met.

Support: 9
Oppose: 4
Undecided: 7

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose
ALBERTA	Undecided
ARIZONA	Oppose
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Undecided	For purposes of this Comment Period we will remain "Undecided" although we would lean toward opposition. We do agree that there needs to be clarity in what constitutes an audit for count and/or strata to meet the requirements of Sections A310 and A320 of the Agreement. And we do understand and agree that consistently doing audits of less than four quarters is not an indicator of a sound audit program. However, as we have indicated before, there are occasions where jurisdictions will want to audit a carrier based on leads from other sources such as law enforcement. Member jurisdictions should applaud the efforts of their peers who seek to enforce tax compliance upon those who do not comply; there should not be a problem with granting "credit" to those who do. Truthfully, if the carrier is purchasing most or all fuel in the base jurisdiction, tax was most likely paid on that fuel. The efforts to enforce compliance really affects member jurisdictions more so than the base. We would prefer to have this proposal structured to permit such occurrences with limitations; perhaps language which permits such "audits" of less than four consecutive quarters where cause is documented and approved by the Program Compliance Review Committee.
IOWA	Undecided
KENTUCKY	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	There are situations where we find licensees that have known reporting and record keeping issues, waiting 4 quarters to conduct an audit extends the time for correction. MN feels it would be benefical if the proposal contained language which allows an audit of less than four consecutive quarters and cause is documented. We are therefore auditing for future compliance.
NEVADA	Undecided	Nevada has long been an advocate for counting audits of less than 4 quarters on accounts that pose a risk. The amount of work involved in an audit is the same whether the audit covers one quarter or four. A four quarter audit requires a one quarter sample. In a one to three quarter audit, a minimum of a one quarter sample is still required, so fears that a jurisdiction would conduct too many "less than four quarter" audits is really unfounded, as the amount of work is essentially the same. Our experience has been audits of high risk accounts, even when less than four quarters are actually more work as the licensees are often times not very cooperative. Nevada will go with the majority on this ballot. If membership feels it is important to have a minimum of four quarters to count as an audit by showing support for this ballot, we will support it. If the majority believes, as Nevada does, that the number of quarters does not matter and opposes the ballot, we will oppose.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	Pennsylvania is currently undecided on FTPBP #4.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Undecided
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
TEXAS	Support
UTAH	Oppose

Support: 9
Oppose: 4
Undecided: 7

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose
ALBERTA	Undecided
ARIZONA	Oppose
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Undecided	For purposes of this Comment Period we will remain "Undecided" although we would lean toward opposition. We do agree that there needs to be clarity in what constitutes an audit for count and/or strata to meet the requirements of Sections A310 and A320 of the Agreement. And we do understand and agree that consistently doing audits of less than four quarters is not an indicator of a sound audit program. However, as we have indicated before, there are occasions where jurisdictions will want to audit a carrier based on leads from other sources such as law enforcement. Member jurisdictions should applaud the efforts of their peers who seek to enforce tax compliance upon those who do not comply; there should not be a problem with granting "credit" to those who do. Truthfully, if the carrier is purchasing most or all fuel in the base jurisdiction, tax was most likely paid on that fuel. The efforts to enforce compliance really affects member jurisdictions more so than the base. We would prefer to have this proposal structured to permit such occurrences with limitations; perhaps language which permits such "audits" of less than four consecutive quarters where cause is documented and approved by the Program Compliance Review Committee.
IOWA	Undecided
KENTUCKY	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	There are situations where we find licensees that have known reporting and record keeping issues, waiting 4 quarters to conduct an audit extends the time for correction. MN feels it would be benefical if the proposal contained language which allows an audit of less than four consecutive quarters and cause is documented. We are therefore auditing for future compliance.
NEVADA	Undecided	Nevada has long been an advocate for counting audits of less than 4 quarters on accounts that pose a risk. The amount of work involved in an audit is the same whether the audit covers one quarter or four. A four quarter audit requires a one quarter sample. In a one to three quarter audit, a minimum of a one quarter sample is still required, so fears that a jurisdiction would conduct too many "less than four quarter" audits is really unfounded, as the amount of work is essentially the same. Our experience has been audits of high risk accounts, even when less than four quarters are actually more work as the licensees are often times not very cooperative. Nevada will go with the majority on this ballot. If membership feels it is important to have a minimum of four quarters to count as an audit by showing support for this ballot, we will support it. If the majority believes, as Nevada does, that the number of quarters does not matter and opposes the ballot, we will oppose.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	Pennsylvania is currently undecided on FTPBP #4.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
RHODE ISLAND	Undecided
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
TEXAS	Support
UTAH	Oppose

Support: 13
Oppose: 18
Undecided: 1

3rd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Oppose	Alberta thanks the I-CAWG members for their work on the ballot and also thank the IFTA Attorney Section for their comments, including the memo received just today. Alberta agrees with all the comments from the IFTA Attorney Section and the comments from Connecticut, Ontario, New Brunswick and others. Alberta continues to have concerns on some of the new mandatory requirements put forth in the ballot, eg, the mandatory requirement for sampling at least one full calendar quarter when system review may be a better way to determine how much sampling is needed, and several other areas where new requirements are made mandatory. Since Alberta does not oppose moving forward on electronic records, our suggestion continues that we can move forward on that particular matter first.
ARIZONA	Oppose
Attorneys Section Steering Committee	Oppose	TO: IFTA JURISDICTION COMMISSIONERS FROM: EDWARD G. BEAUDETTE, CHAIRMAN IFTA ATTORNEY SECTION STEERING COMMITTEE RE: COMMENTS ADVISING AGAINST ADOPTING BALLOT#2014-03 INTRODUCTION At the 2015 IFTA Audit Workshop in San Antonio, I made a presentation detailing the reasons why the Attorney Section Steering Committee has great concern regarding the passage of this ballot in its current form. At the conclusion, I was asked to forward my remarks to you for review prior to the voting on this ballot. If any of you have any questions after reading this I will be more than happy to try to address them. MAJOR CONCERNS FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE PORTIONS OF THE BALLOT JEOPARDIZE THE LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY OF THE IFTA AGREEMENT The Articles of Agreement for IFTA must be looked at as a Policy document. The best analogy is that the Agreement is the equivalent in concept to a Constitution. It sets out the basic framework of the meaning and intent of the drafters. On the other hand, the IFTA Audit and Procedures Manuals are the equivalent of statutes or administrative rules passed or adopted to implement the intent of the Agreement. The proposed Ballot #2014-03 by its expansion of Article VII of the Agreement, incorporating primarily records related provisions on issues like retention, adequacy, summaries and the specifics of what a licensee must maintain regarding fuel and distance records, changes the nature of the Agreement from a policy document to a procedures and standards document. This is a very perilous change that could result in increased potential attacks and altered interpretations of the Agreement which could result in a legal determination of invalidity. This would be a disaster for a program that is one of the most efficient and reliable tax collection and distribution mechanisms ever devised. The IFTA Articles of Agreement is a unique document. It operates between the States and the States and Canadian Provinces. Its core concepts have received Congressional approval, which may elevate it to the legal status of a compact. Changes in the Articles of Agreement, even through the amendment process, may have unforeseen consequences that could threaten the enforceability of the agreement itself. Making the type of wholesale changes that portions of this ballot call for could inadvertently change the nature of the agreement. One of the main reasons that the three separate documents, (Articles of Agreement, Audit Manual, Procedures Manual) were used was the recognition that the details of the day to day operations may need to be amended. By keeping the day to day audit and procedural functions separate from the core provisions contained in the Articles of Agreement, it allowed for the type of changes that might be necessary, such as those related to recordkeeping technology without amending the Articles of Agreement which had received congressional approval. Placing the details of operations in the Articles of Agreement is more than a stylistic change. Rather than making the specific provisions “more enforceable” it may have the opposite effect. If it is deemed that the Articles of Agreement have had substantive changes that go beyond the initial congressional approval, it could jeopardize the legal basis for enforceability of the entire program. The most distressing part of these changes is the fact that in the present political climate where Congress has failed to enact a new Highway funding bill for years, it would be highly unlikely, if at all possible, to pass a replacement for the laws originally implementing IFTA. While we all know the undeniable benefits of the use of IFTA for the states and the industry, the prospect of re-enacting fuel tax legislation is highly unlikely at this time of political gridlock and anti-tax sentiment. PROTECTION OF JURISDICTIONAL SOVERIEGNTY The changes to the Audit Manual with the inclusion of mandatory jurisdictional activities in the auditing process by inserting “shall” and “must” requirements for some activities and procedures and the creation of a new requirement of “should” activities is another extremely problematic issue. In addition Ballot #2014-03 includes penalty provisions that go beyond the statutory authority of many jurisdictions. The inclusion of mandatory auditing requirements in the name of “professionalism” is mandating activities that may go well beyond the budgets and staffing of many jurisdictions. Further, these mandates can result in potential sanctions to jurisdictions, so the inevitable result will be disputes and disagreements that will have to be resolved to determine the extent of their meaning. This would be a colossal waste of time and resources and it will surely engender needless conflict amongst the jurisdictions. This would be a detriment to IFTA that is wholly unnecessary at this point. Another critical issue from a legal standpoint is the fact that by specifically mandating specific accounting standards, it creates a requirement for full compliance with all the underlying auditing requirements such as sampling size, etc. that could, if not fully complied with, render a jurisdiction’s auditor’s testimony as inadmissible in a legal proceeding. Again, this and other potential problems are self-inflicted wounds that would again in many jurisdictions be virtually impossible to rectify through legislation because of the nature of the issue as a tax. The states need to be able to consider the ramifications of these provisions on their individual situations and they should not be forced to make this decision as part of an “all or nothing” ballot. ALL INCLUSIVE ONE BALLOT ONE VOTE Ballot #2014-03 is a very complicated and diverse set of proposals which address separate and distinct issues in an all or nothing format. Creating this type of proposal creates an immediate dilemma for those who will have to live with the results. One issue with great support is the need to change the record keeping and reporting standards to address changing technology. Everyone agrees that this needs to be done in one form or another. However, requiring that in order to get the necessary changes to the records provisions a jurisdiction must also accept the new mandatory audit provisions, definitions, penalties, sanctions, etc., which may be an impractical option under the laws of many jurisdictions, is simply untenable for a quasi-mandatory association such as IFTA. While the drafting committee argues that the changes to the documents are essentially necessary to all be enacted at once has some appeal, it is clearly not insurmountable. Good drafting of individual ballots for each of these separate but critical issues could be done relatively quickly by an experienced legal drafter and it would provide clear, separate choices on all of the changes presented. CHANGES IN EXISTING LEGAL STANDARDS AND SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF As the attorneys on the Attorney Section Steering Committee looked closely at the proposed Ballot #2014-03, it became apparent that many of the new provisions which were to be incorporated into the Articles of Agreement and the Audit manual made significant changes to the established legal burden of proof under these documents. The hallmark of the IFTA Agreement and its procedures has been the “bright line” of putting the entire burden of providing the required records on the licensee. This concept is placed in serious jeopardy by the proposed changes in Ballot #2014-3. It is interesting to note that no IFTA jurisdiction attorneys were involved in the drafting of this ballot but an attorney for the trucking industry was included. Some of the most concerning changes contained in the ballot are as follows: Proposed provision A360 Line 709 and P 530 places the burden on the jurisdiction to present “evidence” of a reporting error. Proposed provision R750.200 adds wiggle room to argue about the validity of fuel records and puts a burden of proof on the jurisdiction, Proposed provision R730 is an incomplete statement of the adequacy of the records. There should be a clear requirement relating to the status of the records provided in relation to the time and effort a jurisdiction would have to expend to complete an audit. Proposed R750.100, regarding fuel records, needs to have a direct tie to the actual purchase i.e. fuel amount, purchase price etc. tied directly to a supplier. There are numerous references to “evidence” which has distinct legal meaning to different degrees throughout the jurisdictions. The qualifier of “audit evidence” needs to be added to the references to “evidence.” There are additional provisions that need to be addressed and most importantly, these items should not be included in the Articles of Agreement as proposed but rather in the Audit and Procedure Manuals as appropriate. CHANGES IN LICENSEE STATUS One of the continuing battles concerning the IFTA Agreement over the years has been to keep licensees out of the Agreement. They are beneficiaries to the provisions but there is no requirement that they participate. By including so many rights and obligations of licensees in the Articles of Agreement as proposed in Ballot #2014-03 it opens the door to the argument that licensees are included in the agreement and would have rights to weigh in on issues and provisions of the Agreement and its interpretation. The fact that licensees are already referred to in the Articles of Agreement does not signify their participation in it. There has to be some reference, but when you make the type of wholesale changes to the Agreement to include licensees’ rights and responsibilities it changes the entire playing field. Similarly, the argument that it’s nice to have all of the licensee requirements in one document is inappropriate. If they must be consolidated they should all be in the Procedures Manual but certainly not in our policy document, the Article of Agreement. You have previously received a copy of an initial comment made by a member of the Attorney Section Steering Committee with the interjection of the responses by the ICAWG. It must be understood that that initial comment was just that, a starting point to demonstrate to the committee that there were significant issues with Ballot #2014-03. It was not intended to be the final word from the Attorney Section. The responses inserted by the ICAWG simply do not address the real issues involved with this ballot. This memorandum should be considered as the opinion of the Attorney Section regarding this ballot in its current form. We strongly advise you to not approve Ballot #2014-03 for the reasons set forth above.
Audit Committee	Support	David Nicholson (OK) Audit Committee Chair Audit Committee Comments: The Audit Committee met on Friday, 2/27 in San Antonio and discussed this ballot at length. After consideration of the comments posted to date, and the response from the ASSC, we voted to move the recordkeeping requirements out of the Articles of Agreement and place them back into the Procedures Manual. Additionally, the word “audit” will be added to every reference of “evidence” placed in the new language. The Audit Committee believes these two changes will sufficiently address the concerns brought forward to date. We believe this ballot addresses significant gaps in current language by providing consistent record keeping and auditing standards and encourage each jurisdiction to stand in support.
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	Connecticut concurs with the comments made by Ontario, New Brunswick, and others related to this ballot. We wish to thank the Attorneys’ Section Steering Committee for their thorough and thoughtful commentary on Ballot 3. As we have stated before, we rely heavily on the opinion of our staff attorneys on matters of statutory and regulatory language proposals. IFTA is fortunate to have a forum that can provide us with guidance from a legal perspective. The advice the attorneys have given embraces what many jurisdictions expressed during the first two comment periods and at the 2014 Annual Business Meeting. That is, to re-write this proposal into separate ballots. Connecticut does not have a fundamental problem with updating the recordkeeping language to reflect current and emerging technologies. The rest of the ballot is, as opined by the attorneys, fraught with potential legal issues. We urge the sponsors and the voting commissioners to heed the attorneys’ advice. We also strongly recommend, as we stated in the Second Comment Period, that the sponsors re-examine the proposal and engage in discussions with all stakeholders to arrive at a proposal we could all support and which will have support in our legal community. As such, Connecticut is opposed to the ballot.
GEORGIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose	Illinois' opposition to this ballot as written aligns well with the remarks given by Connecticut and Ontario.
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports ballot 3. It replaces antiquated electronic record keeping requirements with requirements appropriate for current and evolving technology. As a result licensees will benefit by relying on clear requirements in support of their compliance while utilizing electronic systems. Jurisdictions will benefit as the new requirements support licensee compliance and their ability to make accurate revenue payments. The ballot supports basic professional standards which enhance uniformity in audit procedures while allowing for crucial jurisdictional auditor judgment. As a result licensees will compete on a far more level playing field and jurisdictions will have greater confidence that their due revenue is being collected.
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support	Kansas supports this ballot in theory but has similar concerns as Montana.
MANITOBA	Oppose	Manitoba agrees with the comments made by Ontario and New Brunswick.
MICHIGAN	Oppose	Oppose. Agree with comments made by Connecticut and Ontario.
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Minnesota opposes due to the size of the proposal, many sections may have unintended consequences and comments from the Attorneys section. .
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri appreciates the opinions offered by the Attorney's Section Steering Committee (ASCC), however, the three main points of concern do not affect our decision support. Missouri supports the recordkeeping language and acknowledges the need to modernize agreement language. Missouri has concerns regarding R770, inadequate records assessment, but since the Audit Workshop we understand that it is acceptable to develop and establish procedures that depict our use of the 20% assessment. It is our understanding this will be supported in a compliance or jurisidction review of the audit.
MONTANA	Undecided	Although Montana supports much of the intent of this ballot proposal, we cannot support it in its current form. If subsequent changes are made to this proposal, Montana will re-evaluate its position. Specific issues regarding the ballot: Montana concurs with the number of other jurisdictions in that this is a “mega-ballot” that is addressing too many items and would be better served if it were broken into individual ballots. I understand that many of the issues are inter-related but this concern can be addressed in the drafting process. Montana supports the first two “intents” listed on page 3 but feels that the 3rd should be reworked. We are concerned about the unintended consequences of “blending” the source documents. A clear distinction between these documents should be maintained. While Montana agrees that we need a series of corrective (perhaps punitive) steps to address continued non-compliance, imposing sanctions during this time of extreme resource constraints may be problematic and counter-productive. I would rather see a stand-alone ballot to address this.
NEBRASKA	Support	Nebraska appreciates the efforts of the I-CAWG for all the work they have put into this ballot. We want to acknowledge their willingness to listen to the membership and make a number of changes that were recommended after the first comment period, Annual Business Meeting and the most recent webinar. We like the ability to apply a 20% adjustment versus the application of the 4.00 mpg adjustment. Changes made to Section R770 are also an improvement. We appreciate the opinions offered by the Attorney’s Section Steering Committee (ASSC), but in our opinion, the arguments raised aren't enough to sway our support of the ballot overall.
NEVADA	Support	Nevada has carefully considered all of the comments posted during the three comment periods afforded to this ballot. Although Nevada believes R120 supports the changes proposed in the Ballot without jeopardizing the Agreement or implying membership extends beyond what Congress approved through ISTEA in 1991, we will continue to support the ballot if the R700 language is moved back into the Procedures Manual as many have suggested. We believe this ballot promotes consistent recordkeeping and auditing standards and applaud the collaborative efforts of the IFTA community and Audit Committee.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	We agree with the necessity for the modernization of the language used in the IFTA documents. However, this re-write is going over and above modernization by implementing changes to the IFTA audit program for which there is no evidence to warrant it. As an example in section A100, we do not agree with the definition of should: “should” is expressing what is probable or expected and is not a requirement. We also concur with Ontario’s comments.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	We agree with the comments made by the Attorney Steering Committee.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	NC has two concerns with the ballot: The audit staff has concerns with A330 and NC also concurs with the IFTA Attorney Section Steering Committee's concerns about ballot.
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose	We concur with Ontario's comments.
ONTARIO	Oppose	Following the ABM presentation and discussion, Ontario had previously expressed support of this ballot. However with the subsequent review undertaken by the Attorney’s Section Steering Committee (ASSC), we believe it prudent to accept their professional opinion and deal with the individual components through separate ballots. As the ASSC review has pointed out, in the current format, if the ballot were to be adopted it may well lead to unintended consequences for the entire IFTA community. We recognize the need to update portions of the manuals but would encourage the Audit Committee to re-draft their proposal, factoring in the ASSC concerns and membership comments, to develop future ballot submissions.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Oppose	Quebec thanks Me Audette and the IFTA Attorney Section for taking the time to present their comments at the 2015 IFTA and IRP Audit Workshop. The following is what Quebec questions: A410-The new section differs from the old A620 Article by removing the following subsection: "Copies of correspondence entre les licensee and member jurisdictions That-have a bearing on a tax liability and special instructions That May Affect the audit Shall Be Forwarded to the base jurisdiction en accord avec Each jurisdiction's disclosure policy. » Quebec wonders on what basis the change of this paragraph has been made and also wonders how the copies of correspondence between the licensee and the member jurisdiction sent to the member base jurisdiction will be protected after the withdrawal of this paragraph. A460-This article does not specify whether the list of information to be included in the audit report is exhaustive. Now, in the old section A660, it is written "but not limited to". Quebec wonders if the list of information required in the new article is exhaustive. The new section R720 says: "In an IFTA audit, the burden of proof Shall Be on the licensee". We understand that there is a desire for uniformity in the use of the terms "shall", "must", "should" and "may". However, considering that the burden of proof is not an obligation to anyone but a state, it would have been preferable, in our opinion, write "the burden of proof is on the licensee". R750-700:The current definition of "motor fuels" in section R239 is large enough to include the "alternative fuel" which is not defined in IFTA. Adding article R750.700 brings more confusion than it clarifies rules. R750.500 and R750.850: We are unable to reconcile the obligations set new R750.220 provisions. We understand that, firstly, the base jurisdiction shall not grant tax paid credit during a fuel purchase unless the carrier submits a proof of purchase (R750.220) and registers (R750.500), but on the other hand, the carrier is not required to submit evidence to the effect that the tax was paid on the purchase with his returns (R750.850). It is likely that the articles R750.220 and R750.500 target field audits. However, this is not what is written. As drafted, these provisions seem to us irreconcilable. R770: This new provision is partly inspired by the previous provisions. Article R770 provides, that in the absence of proper records, the jurisdiction will choose to apply one of the simplistic calculations offered there instead of analyzing the situation and to assess in a reasonable manner â”€ planned analysis in Article A550 IFTA currently in force. Thereby IFTA inc. infringes on the sovereignty of the jurisdictions to assess fairly taking into account the overall situation.
RHODE ISLAND	Oppose	Rhode Island opposes this ballot based on the opinions made by the Attorney Steering Comitte.
SASKATCHEWAN	Oppose	We would like to thank the I-CAWG members for all of their work on the ballot and also thank the IFTA Attorney Section for their comments. While we may support the ideas behind the ballot, we feel that we must agree with the comments made by New Brunswick and Ontario. We are hoping this ballot can be broken down into smaller ballots that can also address the Attorney Sections concerns.
Stakeholders	Support	ATA - Robert Pitcher Motor carriers depend heavily on IFTA. When IFTA works smoothly, the Agreement ensures that each jurisdiction gets its appropriate revenues, and that each taxpayer pays its fair share, with a minimum of administrative burden on all parties. It is for this very basic reason that the industry takes such an interest in IFTA, for we need to make sure that IFTA works right. These things should go without saying. Many have perceived problems with IFTA’s audit and record-keeping provisions for a long time. IFTA’s language is in many places obscure, obsolete, or even contradictory. This does not serve to promote uniformity in audit practices in some areas where uniformity counts. Over the last decade, a series of proposed amendments have sought to address some of these problems, but for one reason or another these have failed. More recently, changes to IRP have succeeded in modernizing the language of that program in these same areas, but have drawn IRP’s requirements apart from IFTA’s. That in itself creates another problem for industry and jurisdictions alike. Ballot 3, the result of a years-long focused effort by a group representing all parties interested in IFTA, clarifies IFTA’s language, modernizes IFTA’s record requirements, and brings IFTA’s rules into line with IRP’s, to minimize audit and record burdens for those subject to or administering both programs. The Ballot retains auditor discretion, while its clarification of IFTA’s language will bring more certainty in the application of IFTA’s rules and procedures. IFTA auditors seem almost entirely to agree that the Ballot’s changes are positive. Certain legalistic objections to the Ballot have arisen very recently. These appear to be groundless. Nothing in Ballot 3 endangers the Agreement that we all depend upon. Rather, the Ballot incorporates a set of realistic, positive changes that will make IFTA and IFTA’s audit program stronger. Ballot 3 should be adopted. I-CAWG Comments After careful consideration of the comments and concerns brought forward prior to their annual meeting in San Antonio last week, the Audit Committee voted to move the recordkeeping requirements out of the Articles of Agreement and leave them in the Procedures Manual. The Audit Committee also voted to add the word “audit” before each reference of “evidence” found in the new language. I-CAWG will be making these changes to the ballot prior to releasing it for membership vote in mid-April. We would like to personally thank each of the Commissioners for taking the time to read and comment on the ballot. The purpose of the IFTA Agreement is to promote and encourage the fullest and most efficient possible use of the highway system by making uniform the administration of motor fuels use taxation laws with respect to motor vehicles operated in multiple member jurisdictions. We believe we have made every effort to preserve this purpose and ensure record keeping and auditing standards support the uniform administration of motor fuel use taxation laws in member jurisdictions. Thank you for your support.
TEXAS	Oppose
UTAH	Support	With the changes made after the Annual meeting, concerning the ability for auditors to use their judgment in audits with poor information, Utah supports this ballot. This ballot will help bring uniformity to the IFTA audit procedure.
WASHINGTON	Support	Washington would support this ballot with some clarification and suggested changes. R710 Retention and Availability of Records Suggest changing "must" travel to the location where records are maintained... to "may travel". A220 Auditor Independence Need clarification on what personal, external, and organizational impairments are? How does this relate to independence? A330 Sampling and Projection Suggest changing "sample vehicles shall be tracked for at least one full calendar quarter" to "representative sample for each license year." A350 Audit Adjustments .005 Suggest changing "reduce the reported fleet MPG or KPL by 20%" to "reduce the reported vehicle MPG or KPL by 20% or .010 Suggest changing "adjust the MPG to 4.00 or the KPL to 1.7" to "adjust the vehicle MPG to 4.00 or the KPL to 1.7"
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose	Concur with other jurisdictions reasons for opposing the ballot.

Support: 19
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 4

4th Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We would like to thank the Audit Committee, I-CAWG and the ASSC for their work and comments on this ballot. After reading through the ballot and the ASSC comments, we are more comfortable with the ballot. In discussion with our audit branch, we have the following suggestions and comments: Proposed effective date - should it be for a calendar year R1340.100 - we are wondering whether a review every 3 years is too often and suggest a 5 year period for review. We are also wondering whether the review should be imperative or not. R1370.100 - We have concerns about the paragraph in that we provide the licensee with an audit letter including the audit findings, audit adjustments and recommendations towards their process. However, the notice of reassesment which processes the actual audit adjustments and shows the effective date of interest and the interest calculation is handled by another area and sent out at a different date than the audit letter so that the time periods specified in R1360 and R1390 may not coincide with the date the "final audit report" is provided to the licensee. We understand the importance of communication but we find the current proposed language in R1370 to be too strict. Our suggestion is that the audit findings and adjustments be provided to the licensee in writing (and don't have to specify that it is the audit report, or audit findings letter, etc.). Also, should the notice of reassessment date be used in our case for R1360 and 1390? R1390 - Just for information, Alberta's fuel tax legislation provides for an objection process ( handled internally) before the appeal process for appeals to be filed with an Alberta court. P510 - We have concerns as our Traffic Safety Act only requires drivers to maintain driver's log for 6 months. In a lot of cases, we will have to use best available information considering the current log, internal controls, etc to make the best judgement on the audit. We suggest that the language be modified to take into account record retention requirements under the laws for the respective base jurisdiction. P540.100 - wondering whether those records "should" be accepted instead of "shall" P540.200 - would like to see an additional requirement that the carriers be responsible to provide the GPS data to our auditors, and not the GPS service provider. P550.700 - suggest the requirements "should" apply, in so far as they are practicable. P570.100 - To provide for auditor discretion and allow for use of best available information, benchmark, etc, our preference is that the base jurisdiction "should' impose an additional assessment, rather than "shall". A100 - The concept of auditing on behalf of all member jursidictions can be subjective and we would appreciate a clear definition of it ( in addition to the examples provided at the annual business meeting) before the word "must" is used. A320 - We think that an example of the licensee's records "should" be included in the audit file instead of "must". A460 - paragraph before .100 - same concern as in R1370. It is important that the audit findings and adjustments be communicated in writing to the licensee but the method of communication should not be limited to just using the audit report. A460 - Our general thoughts are that the information should be included in the audit package which may include the audit report and schedules, the audit findings letter, etc, and that the information should be clearly cross referenced so that one can see clearly where to go to obtain the information. Requiring all the information right on the audit report is too strict and leads to inefficiencies . A470 - we suggest that the audit file "should" contain at teast the following information instead of "shall" A470.010 - suggest to qualify the statement that it is only records that are relevant to IFTA and its compliance that should be listed. We also wish to echo Oregon's comments from the comment period ending June 12, 2014 on what to do if a carrier is just a couple of days late in responding. Our general thoughts are that there should be some discretion to deal with unforseeable and reasonable circumstances and so the word "should" should be considered in a number of cases rather than the word "shall".
ARIZONA	Support
Attorneys Section Steering Committee		After reviewing the original ballot, the ASSC had raised several concerns as we outlined in our original comments. The Audit section has responded by redrafting the ballot to address the concerns raised. We have worked with the audit committee on the redraft and reviewed their latest document. The ASSC thanks the Audit committee for listening and responding to the specific concerns raised. We had stated that the ballot contained what appeared to be three separate and distinct provisions which would be better understood if addressed separately. This has been addressed by removing much of what caused the ballot to be so lengthy, the moving of many of the provisions of the audit manual to the agreement. The Ballot in its redrafted form has taken out these changes to the IFTA agreement which raised concerns regarding the nature of the agreement and its continued enforceability. This is no longer a concern with the ballot as currently revised. The ballot still does contain what could be argued as two items which could be separately considered, the electronic record provisions, and the changes to the audit procedures. However, the revised document clearly states the specific changes to the audit procedures, gives a brief rational for each change and a clear indication that the changes would not affect the items that the peer review committee could refer to the dispute resolution committee. The new form makes it much more clear to the membership what changes are being sought, why, and what the consequences of a jurisdiction’s noncompliance with the new mandatory provisions would be. The ASSC sees this aspect of the revised ballot as a model of transparency and clarity. After reading the revised ballot jurisdictions should be able to make a well- Informed decision based on a clear understanding of what the new provisions will require.
CALIFORNIA	Oppose	California appreciates all the hard work that has gone into creating Ballot #3-2014 and hopes much of it can be used on future ballots but California cannot support this ballot. Reasons California is opposed to Ballot 03-2014. 1. This ballot has grown beyond the scope of the stated intent. Intent 1. Provide distance reporting requirements for IFTA that address technological advances in the recording of qualified motor vehicle travel, regardless of media. 2. Modify the Audit Manual to enhance uniformity in the conduct of audits and in the content of the Inter-jurisdictional audit report. California recommends the two intents be broken up into two separate ballots, and those ballots should be restricted to the scope of the stated intent (avoid scope creep). 2. Section P520 Burden of Proof, requires jurisdictions to impose a punitive measure of a 4.0 mpg or 20% reduction of MPG. the base jurisdiction shall impose an additional assessment by either: .005 adjusting the licensee’s reported fleet MPG to 4.00 or 1.70 KPL; or .010 reducing the licensee’s reported MPG or KPL, by twenty percent. Punitive actions must always be at the discretion of the auditing jurisdiction and never a requirement of the Agreement. Recommend replacing “Shall” with “Should" or "May”. 3. The ballot is adding language that does not belong in the Agreement. An example is: A240 AUDITOR QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES All jurisdictions have established minimum qualifications and expectations for their audit positions. Jurisdictions are not going to look to the Agreement for its auditor qualifications or responsibilities. It is inappropriate to place this type of language in the Agreement. 4. Sections of the ballot are written in a negative tone (Thou Shall Not). .200 The base jurisdiction shall not accept, for purposes of allowing tax-paid credit, any fuel record that has been altered, indicates erasures, or is illegible, unless the licensee can demonstrate that the record is valid. 210 The base jurisdiction shall not allow tax-paid credit for any fuel placed into a vehicle other than a qualified motor vehicle. 220 The base jurisdiction shall not allow a licensee credit for tax paid on a retail fuel purchase unless the licensee produces, with respect to the purchase The Agreement is a positive document and should maintain a positive tone. The same information can be written in a positive tone 5. California does not support the approach of creating a single ballot with so many changes to the Agreement. It is too hard to understand all the effects these changes may have on the Agreement and trying to read and digest all the information presented can be confusing.
GEORGIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support
Industry Advisory Committee	Support	IAC Chair, Sandy Johnson - 7/13/2015 IFTA is an agreement that depends on cooperation and for the past 30+ years it has worked to the benefit of both government and industry. IFTA ensures that each jurisdiction gets its share of revenues and each taxpayer pays tax only on what they use. IFTA is a key element to commerce in the United States and Canada in getting goods to market. The motor carrier industry relies on IFTA to streamline their tax reporting requirements. Most, if not all, simply want IFTA to function optimally and with little legalese. Just tell them what is required, in clear language. A lack of uniformity created by outdated language is currently a problem for IFTA. IRP, a similar agreement, succeeded in updating their language to meet today’s motor carrier industry realities. The differing requirements between IFTA and IRP now present a problem for both the motor carrier industry and government. The I-CAWG, a group of dedicated practitioners of the program, spent much time and effort to bring the IFTA rules into line with IRP’s to minimize the audit and record burdens for all subject to or administering both programs. Delaying the clarification and modernization of the IFTA language creates a huge problem for both government and industry as it makes it practically impossible for the industry to meet the record keeping requirements and the government to audit them. The Ballot retains auditor discretion, a key element. It seems that all auditors almost entirely agree that the changes to the language are positive. Ballot 3 should be adopted.
KANSAS	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Maine’s audit group provides the following observations. Line 62 – Should R1320 be lined out? Lines 129-130 – R1370 Audit Reports – New section that adds that the 30 and 45 days start when the licensee is provided the final audit report. This added langue creates a conflict with the referred to sections R1360 and R1390 (new) as each section provides when the time periods start. Lines 188-195 – R1390 Audit Appeals – This section appears superfluous as current section R1400 provides for ALL appeals. This section would add additional requirements for jurisdictions, even if they do have appeal procedures law. If passed this section could conflict with a jurisdiction’s appeal laws. Lines 349-358 and 456-465 - Deviation from calendar quarterly – these sections introduce new concepts into this document with terms such as “slightly” and “materially”. Suggest removing these sections, as these terms are not defined. The concept is sound. As long as all the operations are reported and it is easier to comply, does it matter that two days of June are reported in the 3rd quarter? Suggest adding this type of guideline to the Best Practices Guide. Lines 515-520 - P520 Summaries – recommend removing the word “demand” and wording the requirement stronger. “Summaries are necessary to facilitate an efficient audit of the licensee’s distance and fuel accounting systems. Monthly and quarterly summaries of the fleet’s operations, reported on the corresponding quarterly tax return that include the distance traveled by and the fuel placed into each vehicle in the fleet, both in total and by jurisdiction are required. Such summaries shall be made available for audit.” Line 562 – “criterion” is singular, should it be replaced with “criteria” plural? Line 907 – Not sure how the PCRC would evaluate how an auditor conducted themselves. Lines 954-976 - A300 Preliminary Audit Procedures - The items in subsections .100, .200, .300 are required for audit. Do not agree that they need to be done as part of the “preliminary procedures”. The way this section is worded appears to imply that all this information should be gathered prior to contact with the licensee. This works for jurisdictions sending questionnaires out prior to starting audits. Maine conducts opening interviews with licensees. Prior to this meeting, we evaluate all information on file, IFTA and IRP, to glean as much information as possible. Lines 1014-1020 A320 Evaluation of Internal Controls - Based on the requirements of sections .400, .500, .600, a determination of the reliability of internal controls would need to be calculated and any testing conducted would be based on the reliabilities of internal controls. This is statistical auditing, typically used in financial statement audits to determine the reliability that an error causing a material misstatement may not be found with the sampling techniques employed. Not sure how this would be applicable to auditing distance. May be useful on very large carrier audits, not as useful on smaller carriers. This should not be a mandate. The proposed effective date should be a minimum of one year after passage. This ballot reflects major changes.
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	A single ballot with numerous changes makes a difficult task in determining the effects of the changes. Minnesota feels the ballot grew beyond the scope of the stated intent leading to unnecessary changes.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEVADA	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	The members of the Audit Committee and the I-CAWG are to be commended for staying focused on their mission and conducting themselves professionally through this lengthy, and at times, contentious process. Commendations should also be given to the Attorney's Section for providing significant study and feedback to the Audit Committee and the jurisdictions. Now that the Attorney’s Section Steering Committee agrees the Audit Committee has addressed their concerns, Oklahoma encourages the jurisdictions to vote in favor of the ballot.
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Oppose	8/25/2015 FINAL Update. After significant anlaysis and review I am left with one inescapable conclusion. This ballot attempts too much change in one fell swoop. I am placed in the position of accepting all or none of the change. It is insufficient justification to be in the position of having to say, *"We can live with it"* as basis for a Yes vote which requires that we take what we see as the good along with the bad. I do not come to this conclusion lightly. I recognize that a significant amount of effort has been expended by IFTA colleagues working together over an extended period of time. I'd like to think that all of that effort is an investnment that can still pay dividends in the form of a series of successor ballots each attempting incremental changes which can be individually considered and either approved or rejected. Given the all or none basis upon which this ballot is predicated, Oregon will vote NO. ***************************************** 7/22 Oregon is interested in seeing new comments from the Attorney Section before deciding. 7/23 update -- Thank you to ASSC for posting their comments. I will certainly take those into consideration before casting a vote. I am left to wonder if there may be unintended consequences resulting from some of the procedural changes contemplated by the ballot. Will we see more "penalty audits?" If the auditor determines that the records do not meet this newly proposed definition of “adequacy” (proposed P530) you could impose the 4.0 MPG or reduce the MPG by 20% with no further discussion. Will auditirs stop agonizing over working with the taxpayer to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that is fair to both the jurisdictions and the taxpayer despite poorly kept or non-existent records? Will auditors simply take the position that the records do not meet the test of adequacy and hand them their assessment? These outcomes certainly appear to be possible choices and that could mean that we move to less than uniform audit conclusions. And with that thought in mind, how shall compliance review teams treat "should" as it will appear in the audit procedures manual? Compliance reviewers will have to treat the Audit Manual differently than they consider the Articles of Agreement or Procedures Manual. In the face of such a possible breadth of audit outcomes depending on h\\\\\\\\ow much effort auditirs want to invest in a no records or insufficient records audit how shall compliance review teams measure for compliance? I am a bit surprised that there is absolutely no mention of this ballot anywhere on the agenda for the business meeting. It is a significant piece of unfinished business. I respect and value all the effort that has been invested in this ballot by the sponsors. I remain undecided and post these comments in the hopes of stimulating further discourse that may well serve to move the needle one way or the other for me before I cast my vote. 7/28 update -- Oregon auditors have been polled and foillows is their consensus opinion. Things we don’t like • Removes locking in the time period required to preserve the records if the licensee fails to provide records. (Line 264) • It indicates that the burden of proof is on the licensee (Line 270)but that is not very strong language compared to the language removed starting on Line 1645 where it definitively states that the audit is presumed to be correct. • Removes the requirement for the licensee to maintain records delineating taxable versus non-taxable fuel and distance plus eliminates the requirement for licensees to maintain distance recaps for each jurisdiction.( Line 360) P560 (line 519) indicates monthly summaries “may” be necessary but does indicate that the licensee “shall” make such summaries available for audit. We don’t think that is as strong of language as what is being deleted. Things we like • Auditors might actually prefer this directive rather than splitting hairs in whether to assess Industry Average or 4.0 mpg. (Line 559) We can still assess based on an Industry Average for individual trucks under A350. (Line 1056) • Adds good direction on when to reduce total fuel when determining a fleet mpg. (Line 1083) • Removes the 3 quarter sampling language. (Line 1275) Where we’re conflicted** • Adequacy of Records gives auditors flexibility and discretion in determining whether they can conduct an audit with the records provided. (Line 285) Giving auditors flexibility and discretion is a double-edged sword. Will auditors from different jurisdictions all operate in disparate ways? Perhaps. Will we have to defend what is adequate and sufficient at hearings and to other jurisdictions? Most likely, yes.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
Stakeholders		ATA - Robert Pitcher (7/28/2015) ATA strongly supports this ballot. We’re pleased to see that the Attorneys Section has withdrawn its objections. Once again, this ballot is needed because (1) IFTA’s current guidance for auditors and licensees in the areas of auditing and record keeping is out of date, confusing, and inconsistent, (2) IFTA needs to accommodate records produced by advanced vehicle-tracking systems, and (3) the proposal will bring IFTA requirements into line with those of the IRP. It may be worthwhile to point out that two years ago IRP adopted distance-reporting rules very similar to those proposed in this ballot, and that no significant problems have developed over that period. On the other side, this ballot’s fuel-reporting rules are very little changed from those IFTA has always had. The lengthy comment period to which this proposal has been exposed has served to improve it, as changes have been made. At the same time, understanding of what the ballot does – and doesn’t do – has grown appropriately. It’s time now to adopt this ballot!
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Virginia recognizes and applauds all the hard work that many have put into this ballot and the ballot process. We are anxious to support a ballot that achieves the intended goals, and simply need some additional time to fully consider all the nuances of the proposal and the latest round of questions and comments.
WISCONSIN	Support
WYOMING	Support

1st Comment Period
2nd Comment Period

Support: 34
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 3

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
ARIZONA	Support
Audit Committee	Support	The Audit Committee supports this ballot. Industry has a valid concern in regard to jurisdictions that reject returns where total gallons exceed the sum of tax paid credit gallons. But it is the Audit Committee's opinion that addressing this Industry concern would best be accomplished separately from this Ballot.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support	We also suggest adding the email address of the person signing the return.
COLORADO	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	By stating the "data elements listed in P720 are to be data captured....." causes concern. For example, we do not electronically store the name and address of our jurisdiction, title of the person filing the tax return, telephone number of the person filing each tax return. That data is however a part of the IFTA licensee demographic information. It would be helpful to specify what the� date of submitted tax return� means for and electronic filing (fee calculation date, filing date, payment date?).
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEW YORK	Undecided	New York concerns with the work 'captured' in defined as 'the act of recording in a permanent file'.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	Obtaining accurate data is the goal, not whether it's obtained on a paper or an electronic form.
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario supports the proposed language as it provides guidance and consistency among the jurisdictions regarding data elements to be captured on IFTA tax returns.
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	Need clarification on the "to be captured".
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	SK supports this improvement.
Stakeholders		ATA - Robert Pitcher Support. This change should be helpful for entities � service bureaus and some licensees � that file IFTA reports in more than one jurisdiction. It would be even more helpful if the list of required elements included the amount of unreceipted or otherwise non-tax-paid fuel being reported. These are necessary quantities for accurate and complete IFTA reporting. At least three categories of fuel should be covered here: nonreceipted fuel (fuel purchased for which no receipt can be produced), fuel purchased in Mexico and used in the U.S., and fuel purchased in places in the U.S. where taxes are not levied (Oregon and some facilities operated by Indians). Moreover, with the increasing use of CNG, for which standard tax collection procedures are not necessarily in place, more licensees may soon need to report non-tax-paid fuel. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Support: This should be helpful for industry. The addition of a field for non-receipted fuel would be helpful. This field is necessary for accurate and complete IFTA returns. The fuel included in this category can include: Non-receipted fuel Indian Reservation fuel purchases (NY, UT, AZ, MI) Oregon Fuel purchases (taxed and non-taxed) Non-IFTA fuel: DC, MX, YT, NT, NU Without the ability to enter these fuel amounts, the MPG/KPL ratio would not be accurate thereby decreasing the amount of tax due.
TEXAS	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 20
Oppose: 9
Undecided: 7

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We are not clear what will be accomplished by the ballot, and we are not clear whether any vehicles previously included in the definition may fall off as a result of the proposal. We are also concerned with the proposal to revise R245.300 as a power unit "with two axles" and trailing unit may unduly limit some of the vehicles currently qualified. One suggestion is to just revise R245.300 as "a power unit and trailing unit...".
Audit Committee	Support	The Audit Committee supports this ballot. It also suggests that this issue be a discussion item at the next Managers and Law Enforcement workshop.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided	As indicated by others, BC is not sure if this ballot is necessary.
CALIFORNIA	Oppose	We do not believe that the proposed amendments add clarity over the existing language.
COLORADO	Undecided
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We understand why the ballot is being proposed; however, the current definition has worked for many years with minimal misinterpretations. The CBI which clarified the definition supports the intent of the existing language. The process of having Consensus Board Interpretations is designed for this very purpose; if we are to change the governing documents every time there is a misunderstanding, why have CBI's at all? In this case, the CBI and the article it supports work and work well in the vast majority of jurisdictions. We recommend that jurisdictions work together to educate those who do not understand either the direct language of the article or the CBI which supports it.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose	The current definition of a QMV and its CBI is solid enough. The definition of a QMV starts out by stating that a "QMV means a motor vehicle...". Most LEO's do not (and should not) consider the trailing unit as a "motor vehicle". If they are including those axles in the "three or more" equation, they need to be re-educated.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Not sure this ballot solves anything that the CBI didn't make clear.
MANITOBA	Undecided	This ballot would not affect how we interpret or administer this section.
MARYLAND	Oppose	Maryland believes that the existing definition and corresponding CBI are sufficient.
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota fees the proposal adds clarity for the jurisdictions, IFTA taxpayer, and law enforcement.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Oppose	No reason to change R245 Qualified Motor Vehivle by adding "power unit" to the definitions .100 and .200 and in .300 using "a power unit with two axles and trailering unit" instead of vehicle combination. This looks more like a jurisdictional training issue.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEW YORK	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Support	Great change. Current language is to vague.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support	While we support this ballot, support does run the risk of implying CBI's don't carry the full force of IFTA law. The language of a CBI is as binding on the jurisdictions as any other provision of the Agreement.
ONTARIO	Oppose	It is our suggestion that emphasis be placed on the training of roadside enforcement officers, rather than amending the definition. Further, changing the definition would have a direct effect on the core principles of IFTA and jurisdictional legislation.
OREGON	Oppose	Not sure it is necessary to incoprporate CBI into Articles in order for them to be governing. As described, issues seems to have more to do with education of law enforcement community.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	This change would not effect how SK administers this article.
Stakeholders		ATA - Robert Pitcher Oppose. ATA opposes this change, for the reasons set out last year: the Agreement is clear on this point already. It is unwise to alter one of the fundamental IFTA definitions to accommodate the occasional misunderstandings of a couple of jurisdictions, whose understanding, after all, may not be improved by the proposed change. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Neutral. No comment
TEXAS	Support
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Like many other jurisdictions we believe the issue at hand may be better addressed through education and training. The concern does not appear to be widespread, and the new language may present more challenges than that posed by the current language.
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support	We believe the change is needed to provide clarification. We have customers who are receiving IFTA citations on non-qualified motor vehicles.

Support: 19
Oppose: 3
Undecided: 14

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta generally supports the ballot in standardization. However, we are unclear about the definitions are arrived at. We are also confused why the 2 definitions are not included with other conversion rates under P1300 and why reference to P1300 is deleted from P730. It will be better if more information about this ballot is discussed first.
ARIZONA	Undecided
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC does not believe this ballot erodes a jurisdiction�s sovereignty to impose a tax at a rate determined by its legislative assembly. BC believes the ballot simply provides a method for restating a jurisdiction�s tax rate into a different but common unit or measure for use by other IFTA jurisdictions. By way of an example, BC's tax rate is currently restated through a two-part process for IFTA reporting purposes (i.e., litres to gallons, and Canadian currency to US currency). The result is BC�s tax of 0.2267 cents per litre for diesel set by our legislature is restated to 0.8398 cents per gallon for US IFTA jurisdictions. IFTA has not forced BC to change its tax rate, IFTA is simply restating BC�s tax rate for others to ensure the correct reporting and distribution of taxes between IFTA jurisdictions. By way of an example, BC's tax rate is currently restated through a two-part process for IFTA reporting purposes (i.e., litres to gallons, and Canadian currency to US currency). The result is BC�s tax of 0.2267 cents per litre for diesel set by our legislature is restated to 0.8398 cents per gallon for US IFTA jurisdictions. IFTA has not forced BC to change its tax rate, IFTA is simply restating BC�s tax rate for others to ensure the correct reporting and distribution of taxes between IFTA jurisdictions.
CALIFORNIA	Support
COLORADO	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We oppose this ballot. Our opposition is based on this jurisdiction's legislature having established a conversion factor for all persons using or distributing fuels that must be converted from a gaseous form to a liquid equivalent. This is enumerated in the motor fuel regulations of this jurisdiction; which includes both those who are subject to IFTA (motor fuel use for interstate carriers possessing QMV's) and those who are not. Passage of this ballot would establish different rules for application in IFTA as opposed to those who use the same fuel type but are not subject to IFTA. IFTA's governing documents focus on the use of fuel in qualified motor vehicles; this ballot interferes with a jurisdiction's authority to establish certain standards and regulations pursuant to its motor fuel tax laws. Respectfully, this is not a simple matter of math; rather, it is about IFTA interfering in a matter that is a relevant part of a jurisdiction's right to exercise substantive taxing authority.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support	This isn't a problem for "liquid" fuels because we have an accepted, standard measured volume... a gallon is a gallon (litre) in every jurisdiction. This isn't the case with the "gaseous" fuels where there are inconsistent units of volume being used as the conversion factor (BTU's, pounds, cubic feet, etc.). We need to establish a measure of voulme that is consistent throughout all jurisdictions so taxes are fairly applied. Standardizing a conversion factor that is inline with the IRS is resonable.
KANSAS	Undecided	We support the idea of uniformity on the conversion, but this will require some Statutes and or Regulation changes for our jurisdiction.
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support	This ballot is essential in order to accurately collect and transmit proper taxes for gaseous fuels. The ballot establishes a common conversion factor among jurisdictions. It does not impinge upon any jurisdiction's abilty to set its own tax rate, or to have its own internal conversion factor. A jurisdiction with a conversion factor in statute other than the (proposed) IFTA standard would need to convert to the IFTA standard prior to transmittal. It's just math.
MANITOBA	Undecided
MARYLAND	Support
MINNESOTA	Oppose	The proposal confilcts with the MN statutory conversion figures for GNG. The proposal is not considering the fact that some jurisdictions have used the legislative authority to calculate and establish a conversion factor for moving a gaseous fuel to its liquid equivalent. This ballot is conflicting with state sovereignty to impose a tax determined by the legislative assembly.
MISSOURI	Support
MONTANA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support	Section P730 needs to have a reference to R237 as well. (See IFTA Articles of Agreement, Section R222/R237 regarding the definition of a gallon/Litre of compressed natural gas.)
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEW YORK	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Undecided	Need to see other comments about the pros and cons of this ballot before making a decision.
NOVA SCOTIA	Undecided
OKLAHOMA	Support	For this organization to be able to effectively administer the Agreement there must be a standard coversion factor to use for gasous fuels when used in combination with liquid fuels.
ONTARIO	Undecided	This ballot as it is a starting point in developing standardized reporting of CNG product but we are not sure of the technical accuracy.
OREGON	Oppose	I am troubled that this ballot seemingly fails to take notice of the fact that some jurisdictions have used their legislative and policy making authority to calculate and establish a conversion factor for moving a gaseous fuel to its liquid equivalent and this ballot therefore seemingly has the net effect of eroding state sovereignty to impose a tax at a level determined by its legislative assembly. Here again, ballots of this sort should not be placed before the membership for a vote at all in my opinion. I respectfully suggest that IFTA Inc should contemplate a litmus test which prevents ballots that cross a clearly defined red line and threaten sacrosanct issues of sovereign state authority (like determining level of taxation or interest rates) from being placed before the membership for voting. It is incomplete to suggest this is just a matter of artihmetic. The perhaps unintended consequence of enactment of this ballot provision might be carriers operating motor vehicles licensed under IFTA being treated differently than carriers operating motor vehicles not subject to IFTA licensing and yet still subject to a Motor Vehicles Fuel Tax. Was that possibility even considered?
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	This ballot is absolutely essential as it establishes conversion rates to allow each jursidiction to speak the same language on fuel types. Failure to establish universal standards could even allow dual-fuel vehicles to either escape taxation of at least one fuel, or may result in the carrier paying too much tax on the combined fuel types. We believe these alternative fuel issues are coming at IFTA faster than one may think and we could have some huge problems if we don't take this simple step to recognize the future.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided
QUEBEC	Undecided	There is no mention of the LNG. Why we don't use R240 and R241 ?
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	SK agrees that a standard for conversion of CNG is required.
Stakeholders		ATA - Robert Pitcher Strongly Support. IFTA needs to adopt this amendment if the Agreement is to handle the reporting of compressed natural gas successfully. The proposal does not require any changes to jurisdiction tax rates, it only imposes a standard conversion factor. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Support. The increased use of CNG requires the adoption of this ballot.
TEXAS	Undecided	The majority of IFTA vehicles are diesel type vehicles, therefore it may be fairer to use the diesel gallon equivalent of 6.38 pounds of CNG instead of the gasoline gallon equivalent.
UTAH	Undecided	Utah is concerned with the potential impact this may have on Jurisdictions who have Statutes that conflict with this conversion measures.
VERMONT	Undecided
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 8
Oppose: 22
Undecided: 6

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Oppose	State legislatures set tax rates for fuel. It seems unreasonable to attempt to pass a ballot proposal that contradicts state laws. We agree that split tax rates are bothersome, but cannot support a ballot whereby a jurisdiction is forced to choose which tax rate they will report.
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta understands the intent of the ballot but cannot see how we can collect using one rate if the jurisdiction's legislation mandates split tax rates.
ARIZONA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided
CALIFORNIA	Support
COLORADO	Support	Colorado supports this concept. With quarters that have split rates, it would be interesting to know how accurately the carriers actually report correctly. This change does not seem to have a material impact if the rate change is not drastic.
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	Split tax rates do pose a challenge to those who program for tax return changes (paper and electronic) and for those who enforce the payment of taxes (audit). We would encourage taxing jurisdictions to work with their legislatures to educate on the hazards of imposing split rates. Nevertheless, a jurisdiction's legislative body establishes what the tax rate will be and those who administer the taxes are bound to the laws enacted. Because of the unique nature of IFTA, base jurisdictions must honor the lawfully imposed tax rates of her fellow members. Whereas there is and has been substantial debate over exactly what IFTA as a membership can and cannot do, there can be no debate over this issue. It would appear from the existing comments that most jurisdictions believe this ballot clearly crosses a line. IFTA cannot interfere in this area, period.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose	I hate split tax rates. My staff hates split tax rates. The carriers certainly hate split tax rates. After a quick first read, I thought that state sovereignty is being tested here by attempting to constrain a legislature's taxing authority. On second reading, however, I see that the sponsor is saying a jurisidiction's legislature can still establish two rates for the quarter, however, the jurisdicition must "advise the repository of a single primary tax rate for the given period": pick one rate and go with it. While it's easy for me to support this line of thought, I feel for the jurisdicitions that would no longer be collecting taxes accurately as intended by their legislature. Essentially, my first read appears to stand.
KANSAS	Undecided	We are undecided at this time.
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MAINE	Oppose	Prohibiting split rates would impinge on a jurisdiction's right to set its tax rates.
MANITOBA	Oppose	While we agree that split tax rates are an administrative headache for jurisdictions and carriers, we can't support this ballot. If a tax rate changes in the middle of a quarter, we want to properly reflect the change.
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Minnesota feels that fuel tax rates are substantive tax provisions. Tax rates are a jurisdictions sovereignty right and the tax rate is determined by legislative assembly. As we commented in prior years jurisdictional law sets the tax rates, the IFTA membership does not have the legal authority to set tax rates based on a report by the National Council of State Legislators. In that report the NCLS advised IFTA that tax rates, are substantive tax provisions, and that the jurisdictions cannot legally delegate authority to determine tax rates.
MISSOURI	Undecided
MONTANA	Oppose	This would impose IFTA administrative preferences on states and their Legislatures by restricting when tax changes can take place.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	Each jurisdictions respective legislatures set their respective tax rates. If a jurisdiction's legislature wants a split rate I do not think this agreement should or can require them to have only one rate.
NEW MEXICO	Oppose
NEW YORK	Oppose	New York feels this would be problematic as it would restrain the State Legislature/Governor from changing tax rates within an IFTA quarter.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support	Split tax rates are a headache both to industry and the IFTA jurisdictions. Since some jurisdictions either condone or cannot prevent their passage this ballot is necessary.
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	Split rates are an administrative headache, and we would like to see a better method of dealing with them. Still, telling the jurisdiction's legislatures they can only change tax rates when we say they can is a step too far. One of the fundamental principals of IFTA is that jurisdictions retain their taxing authority. This ballot potentially over reaches by challenging that fundamental principal.
ONTARIO	Support	The intent of this ballot is not to prevent jurisdictions from changing their tax rates, but that any change would simply coincide with a quarterly reporting period.
OREGON	Oppose	Ballot #4 once again raises the specter of IFTA Inc violating state sovereignty with regard to taxing authority. That said, I am not unsympathetic to the underlying motivation as split rates are very difficult to administer but I do not endorse abrogating state sovereignty to achieve administrative efficiencies. In my opinion, IFTA Inc should not allow ballots to be considered for vote by the membership that contemplate changes to the agreement that exceed the authority of IFTA Inc to make and enforce. See rationale included in Oregon comments on Ballot #3.
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose
QUEBEC	Oppose	Same comments as New Hampshire.
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	Based on the excessive effort and confusion for carriers and jurisdictions alike, SK agrees that a method of creating a single tax rate for a particular quarter is desireable.
Stakeholders	Undecided	ATA - Robert Pitcher Undecided. We recognize the difficulty and expense for jurisdictions that must accommodate mid-quarter rate changes. On the other hand, such changes will occur from time to time, with or without this amendment, and the difficulty and expense involved for motor carriers in a single jurisdiction�s efforts to collect additional tax outside of IFTA must also be recognized. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Neutral. This is a jurisdictional issue.
TEXAS	Oppose	This ballot is in direct conflict with the core principles of the Agreement; the sovereign authority to determine tax rates (R130.100.010, Articles of Agreement)
UTAH	Oppose	Utah agrees that split tax rates are troublesome; however one of the core principles of the Agreement is that the Jurisdictions are allowed to set tax rates. This ballot would be a major change to the principle.
VERMONT	Oppose
VIRGINIA	Oppose
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose
WYOMING	Support	Split tax rates confuse customers.

Support: 5
Oppose: 20
Undecided: 8

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided	The ballot language needs to be tweaked a bit.
ALBERTA	Oppose
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided
CALIFORNIA	Support
COLORADO	Support
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We oppose this ballot for many reasons. The ballot process would appear to be purposefully laborious because changes to the governing documents ought to be very carefully considered and evaluated by the membership. Those changes, unless absolutely necessary, ought to be few and far between. Yet, year after year we have proposed changes presented to the membership which are either not particularly well thought out or are very secular in nature. We are not sure that the plethora of ballots we have seen over the years serves any of us particularly well. We know there are jurisdictions that do not vote; however, we are not sure we know why. Jurisdictions that do not vote may well be opposed to a ballot or are simply undecided. If we are to consider abstentions to mean "nothing" and the total number of votes cast becomes the basis, we could very well impact the governing documents or worse yet, impose expulsion with a minority of jurisdictions actually voting.
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose	Opposed as written, but I endorse the original intent: 1) align the voting standards throughout the Agreement, and; 2) in order to have a say in the voting process, you must actually cast a vote. Jurisdictions that do not excercise their right to vote, or abstain from voting, should be considered to have ceded their interests to those jurisdictions who have voted.
KANSAS	Undecided	I know there are times when it is better to abstain if you do not understand the issue at the time. However by the time ballots go to vote we all should know one way or another how our jurisdiction feels about the issue. Ask the sponsor questions, have your jurisdiction attorneys, law enforcement etc. review the ballot. We all need to make sure we are protecting our jurisdiction's best interest. By not voting and allowing a ballot to either pass or fail that could potently not be in your jurisdictions best interest, and should not be an acceptable practice.
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MAINE	Oppose	Oppose as wrtten. R1520 adds "electronically" but still requires certified mail. The failure of a jurisdiction to vote on a membership application goes from being a "yes" vote to being a "no" vote. The ballot is awkard in its wording. I know its frustrating when your ballot fails, and some jurisdictions don't vote. The IFTA voting and amendment process is as it is on purpose. Making these changes will have consequences. In general, if a jurisdictionis OK with the status quo, they do not have to take any action.
MANITOBA	Undecided
MINNESOTA	Oppose	Oppose as written. The wording seems cumbersome, unclear, and confusing. The current amendment process seems to have worked for the past 30 years. Making changes has the potential for unintended consequences
MISSOURI	Undecided
MONTANA	Oppose	agree with intent but there seems to be some conflict in the wording by requiring ballots to be mailed electronically via certified mail. If this language was clarified, MT would likely support.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose
NEW MEXICO	Oppose
NEW YORK	Oppose
NORTH DAKOTA	Oppose	This ballot if passed could inadvertently pressure jurisdictions to vote even if they were unsure how to vote. This ballot if passed could enhance the likelihood of others ballots passing whether flawed or not.
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario agrees with the intent of this ballot. However, it may be best to revise the wording of the ballot to clarify this does not affect the three-fourths voting requirement.
OREGON	Oppose	There are a host of practical reasons to not endorse this ballot but underlying all of those remains the fact I am philosophically opposed to this notion and will vote NO.
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose	Changing an agreement such as IFTA should require an affirmative vote from as many jurisdictions as possible because it is not appropriate to assume that every proposed amendment is good for the entire IFTA community.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose
QUEBEC	Oppose	No need to do any modifications. The jurisdiction that doesn't want to vote is probably doing it on purpose for reason that doesn't want to reveal.
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	SK has a concern with the change to R1555.400. Expulsion is a significant step for the membership and should require a high threshold.
Stakeholders		ATA - Robert Pitcher Oppose. The important result of the change would be to make IFTA easier to amend. (That IFTA is inconsistent with respect to the voting on matters other than amendments is unimportant.) Over its 30 years, IFTA has been a tremendous success. Both jurisdictions and industry depend on it heavily in the administration of a critical element of public finance. Every year, proponents of amending the Agreement in one respect or another are successful in doing so. Jurisdictions that fail to submit a vote may be presumed to be doing so on purpose; it is a reasonable response in many situations. The amendment process works; leave it alone. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Undecided. Why not a requirement for the jurisdiction to reply with �no-position� or �no response�? I am not convinced that no response or being silent on the issue equates to a no vote. However, I�m not sure there is a need to change the agreement. It should not be easy to change the agreement.
TEXAS	Oppose	Requiring only three-fourths of the votes case will have an undesirable effect on the voting process by reducing the number of affirmative votes necessary to expel a member, amend the Agreement, or expedite a ballot effective date.
UTAH	Undecided	Utah supports the idea of this ballot. Just as in our Nation's election processes, if you do not vote, you are not casting a no vote, you are allowing others to decide. In the current IFTA process, if you do not cast a vote, you are in fact casting a no vote, without having to put your vote officially on record. Utah is undecided as we feel a minor change needs to be made (or clarified). Under R1520, by adding in the word "Electronically", it seems to cause a conflict with the balance of the sentence. The one section Utah is still considering the impact of, is R1555.400. The expulsion of a Member Jurisdiction is a very serious matter. Utah is undecided as to if we feel the change to "votes cast" is the correct direction to go in this case.
VERMONT	Oppose
VIRGINIA	Oppose
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose
WYOMING	Undecided

Support: 25
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 1

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MASSACHUSETTS	Support
MICHIGAN	Support
MISSOURI	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEW MEXICO	Undecided
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support	We support the ballot, but recommend that Mass turnpike miles be identified as belonging in non-taxable - it's not always clear that this is where it belongs.
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
Stakeholders	Oppose	IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Oppose: To clarify, industry supports the adoption of electronic filing of returns. However, without the addition of non-IFTA fuel to the return, adoption of this ballot has the potential to create serious consequences for both government and industry. 1. Non-receipted fuel 2. Indian Reservation fuel purchases (NY, UT, AZ, MI) 3. Oregon Fuel purchases (taxed and non-taxed) 4. Non-IFTA fuel: DC, MX, YT, NT, NU Without the ability to enter these fuel amounts, the MPG/KPL ratio will not be accurate thereby decreasing the amount of tax due.
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 15
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 3

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	We are hesitant to see changes in the fundamental definition when education is what may be needed.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided	BC does not believe this ballot is necessary.
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	We are still not convinced that this ballot is necessary. We believe the CBI provides sufficient clarification and support for the subject article in the governing documents. The proposed language does not provide assurance that these differing views on the definition of a qualified motor vehicle would cease. We would be reluctant to set a precedent where the governing documents are amended every time member jurisdictions have conflicting opinions on the application of the Agreement provisions. We advise that an education effort is a better path to take; alternately, IFTA already provides for issues of compliance with the Agreement to be resolved by utilizing the dispute resolution process.
ILLINOIS	Oppose	A change to the definition of a Qualified Motor Vehicle is not necessary. If there is a concern that law enforcement is including the axles of a trailing unit with a two-axled QMV and the combination does not weigh (or registered) greater than 26,000, then further education is necessary.
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Undecided
MASSACHUSETTS	Oppose	I think the current definition of "Qualified Motor Vehicle" is pretty clear. However, as pointed out in this proposal, more education is needed.
MICHIGAN	Oppose
MISSOURI	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	The current definition of a qualified motor vehicle does not need to be amended. The current definition is appropriate and should not be changed.
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OKLAHOMA	Support
ONTARIO	Oppose	It is our suggestion that emphasis be placed on the training of roadside enforcement officers, rather than amending the definition. Further, changing the definition would have a direct effect on the core principles of IFTA and may significantly impact jurisdictional legislation.
Stakeholders	Oppose	ATA - Robert Pitcher Oppose. IFTA is clear on this point already. It is unwise to alter one of IFTA�s fundamental definitions to accommodate the occasional isunderstandings of a couple of jurisdictions, whose understanding, after all, may not be improved by the proposed change. The discussion at the 2013 ABM strongly indicated that the proposed change would be of little help in this respect. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Oppose. Industry feels the definition in IFTA is currently sufficient.
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Oppose	We continue to believe the issue at hand may be better addressed through education and training. The concern does not appear to be widespread, and the new language may present more challenges than that posed by the current language.
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support	We believe the change is needed to provide clarification. We have customers who are receiving IFTA citations on non-qualified vehicles.

Support: 19
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 6

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CONNECTICUT	Undecided	Connecticut is currently exploring potential legislative change which could result in a parallel statute to the language being proposed by this ballot. We agree that a uniform definition is desirable; it is our hope that such statutory amendment would provide uniformity between this jurisdiction's motor fuel laws and the governing documents of IFTA.
ILLINOIS	Support
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Undecided	We support having uniform conversion factor, we will need to update regulations and statutes.
KENTUCKY	Undecided	Has potential to need legislative change
MAINE	Support	It is essential to have a standard conversion rate for CNG. This is exactly the same as havng a standard exchange rate between the US and Canadian dollars.
MANITOBA	Undecided
MASSACHUSETTS	Undecided	We believe some sort of conversion factor is needed, not sure if this is the right way to go.
MICHIGAN	Support	Benefit in having jurisdictions choose a definition that goes with federal conversion factors. May lead to consistency with others states choosing the same definition.
MISSOURI	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose
OKLAHOMA	Support	IFTA will fail to function, as it relates to CNG, without a standard conversion rate.
ONTARIO	Undecided	We mirror the comment provided by Massachusetts and agree a conversion factor is needed, but not sure if this is the right option. We will continue to research the matter.
Stakeholders	Support	ATA - Robert Pitcher Strongly Support. IFTA needs to adopt this amendment if the Agreement is to handle the reporting of compressed natural gas successfully. Without a standard conversion factor, licensees will simply be unable to report CNG appropriately, or jurisdictions to process accurately the reports they receive. The proposal does not require any changes to jurisdiction tax rates, it only imposes a standard conversion factor. There is no more �infringement on a jurisdiction�s sovereignty� than is already involved in Canadian carriers reporting on the basis of cents (Can.) per liter and U.S. carriers in cents (U.S.) per gallon. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Support. The increased use of CNG requires the adoption of this ballot.
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support

Support: 4
Oppose: 15
Undecided: 6

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2013

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided
ALBERTA	Oppose	Jurisdictions understand the Agreement and have the right to make their decision based on what is currently written in the Agreement.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Oppose
CONNECTICUT	Oppose	This ballot, while well intentioned, will surely result in unintended consequences. We understand the frustration some have with jurisdictions not voting; however, that is their choice and their right. As several others have opined, there may be valid reasons for not voting. In spite of the frustrations with those who do not vote, making the Agreement easier to amend or expulsion easier to achieve is not the answer. The governing documents should not be easy to amend and the expulsion of a member is the most difficult issue the commissioners may have to consider. For illustration purposes, using the seventy-five percent threshold for passage, does anyone really believe it would be appropriate to have four jurisdictions vote on a ballot or expulsion resolution and achieve either the passage of language or the expelling of a member with three affirmative votes?
ILLINOIS	Support	One should actually have vote to in order to have their vote counted in the outcome of a ballot. Jurisdictions not voting should not be afforded a counted "vote" if they don't actually vote. Perhaps an "abstain" button should be available in the voting booth for those not wanting to cast a yes/no vote but still wanting to be counted in the outcome.
IOWA	Oppose
KANSAS	Undecided
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MAINE	Oppose	Jurisdictions know what tehy are doing. The curernt process works.
MANITOBA	Undecided
MASSACHUSETTS	Undecided	I don't believe an "absentia" vote always means "No". There may be many reasons why one abstains from voting. All for getting out of the paper ballot world.
MICHIGAN	Oppose	The current process works and by altering the agreement in order to accommodate the �what if�, we are truly lacking trust within our own organization.
MISSOURI	Undecided
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose
NEW JERSEY	Oppose
NEW MEXICO	Undecided
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
ONTARIO	Oppose	The ballot is not sufficiently clear in either its wording or the intended outcome.
Stakeholders	Oppose	ATA - Robert Pitcher Oppose. The important results of the change would be to make IFTA easier to amend and to make it easier for IFTA to expel a jurisdiction. Over its 30 years, IFTA has been a tremendous success. Both jurisdictions and industry depend on it heavily in the administration of a critical element of public finance. Every year, proponents of amending the Agreement in one respect or another are successful in doing so. Jurisdictions that fail to submit a vote may be presumed to be doing so on purpose. It is a reasonable response in many situations. The amendment process works; leave it alone. And it is positively alarming that a ballot is seriously proposed to make it easier to expel an IFTA member. The arguments in favor of this ballot that were presented at the 2013 ABM were remarkably unpersuasive. IAC - Sandy Johnson, Chair Oppose: The IFTA agreement is critical to the movement of goods throughout North America. For even a single jurisdiction to be expelled from the agreement would create untold hardships on both government and industry, not to mention the public, which is why this agreement exists in the first place. This ballot has the potential to allow for the easier expulsion of a non-complying jurisdiction.
VERMONT	Oppose
VIRGINIA	Oppose
WEST VIRGINIA	Oppose
WYOMING	Support

IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #1 - 2023

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2023

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #3 - 2023

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #4 - 2023

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #3 - 2023

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #1 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #3 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #4 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #5 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #6 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #7 - 2022

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #8 - 2022

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2022

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #5 - 2022

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2021

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2021

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2021

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2021

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #1 - 2021

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2021

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2021

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #5 - 2021

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2020

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2020

1st Period Comments on STPBP #3 - 2020

1st Period Comments on BYLAWS - 2020

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2020

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #2 - 2020

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2019

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2019

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2018

1st Period Comments on STPBP #2 - 2018

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2018

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2018

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2018

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #1 - 2018

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #2 - 2018

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2018

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2018

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2018

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2017

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2017

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2017

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2017

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2017

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2017

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2017

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #3 - 2017

2nd Period Comments on STPBP #4 - 2017

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2017

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2016

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2016

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2016

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2016

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2016

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #7 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2015

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #7 - 2015

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2014

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2014

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2014

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2014

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2014

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2014

3rd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2014