IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2025

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Opposed	Alberta is concerned that this ballot will result in an unnecessary burden on our administration and will potentially discourage carriers from making decal requests in a timely manner. Alberta does not see the need for temporary decals as our process for requesting decals has been streamlined resulting in minimal delay for carriers to receive decals. This is something that should be decided by each jurisdiction individually and should not be mandated for all.
Attorney Advisory Committee		As it is drafted, R1545.300 is “unreasonable,” but the proposed ballot only seems to offer a solution to certain non-compliance. Shouldn’t this ballot also address all non-compliance? The ballot proposes to amend R650 of the Agreement to state, “…permit shall be delivered to the carrier electronically, either via an online system or email”. This wording limits the methods to “either” an online system or email, and thereby excludes other forms of electronic transmission. While fax machines are becoming increasingly obsolete, it is possible that certain jurisdictions and licensees continue to transfer documents using this method. Accordingly, it is suggested that the amendment be updated in a way that is less restrictive. For example, “The IFTA temporary decal permit shall be delivered to the licensee electronically, for example, via an online system or email.” (Note: suggesting that “licensee” be used rather than “carrier” for consistency with the references to “licensee” elsewhere in R650.) It is also noted that the ballot does not indicate whether any consultation was done with jurisdictions who currently do not offer temporary permits to determine the amount of time such jurisdictions may need to develop and implement the proposed requirement. Accordingly, it is unknown whether the proposed effective date of January 1, 2026, is feasible for all jurisdictions. Furthermore, it is suspected that various jurisdictions, including both jurisdictions who offer temporary decal permits and those who do not, may oppose such a mandatory administrative requirement on the basis of increased administrative burden. It is understood that issuing temporary decal permits is normally a manual, administratively burdensome, process. While it is acknowledged that an inability to obtain a temporary decal permit may delay a carrier’s ability to travel interjurisdictionally, many jurisdictions allow carriers to purchase a single-trip permit that could be used until the IFTA registration has been confirmed and decals have been received.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
ILLINOIS	Oppose	This proposal is resource-intensive, requiring revised application forms, additional programming, and updated regulations/protocols. A new type of permit in IL would also open another opportunity for forgery of IL credentials. Finally, IL licensees usually receive decals within a week. So, the cost of implementing and administering a temporary decal versus the benefits gained for both licensees and Illinois does not weigh in favor of creating new temporary decal permits. If approved, please consider making the ballot take effect January 1, 2027, to allow time for implementation. Also, a suggestion for the final sentence would be to revise as follows: “The IFTA temporary decal permit shall be delivered to the licensee carrier electronically, either via an online system or email.”
Industry Advisory Committee		The IAC strongly supports Ballot #05-2025, as it addresses a critical need to expedite the process for getting new vehicles on the road. Establishing a uniform approach across jurisdictions not only enhances efficiency but also upholds the core purpose of IFTA—promoting the fullest and most efficient possible use of the highway system by motor vehicles operated in multiple member jurisdictions. This change will provide much-needed clarity and support to both industry and jurisdictions.
IOWA	Support	Iowa is in favor of this ballot.
KANSAS	Support	Kansas currently issues temporary decal permits.
KENTUCKY	Oppose	KY has a single trip permit.
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support	Maryland currently issues temporary IFTA decal permits.
MICHIGAN	Support	Michigan currenlty provides temporary decals to our carriers.
NEVADA	Support	NV already issues Temporary IFTA.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolina generally supports the ballot's intent but has concerns with its language. Therefore, it has noted its position as undecided. If the appropriate changes are made to this ballot, North Carolina would support the ballot. North Carolina currently faxes temporary decals to licensees. It would like to continue this practice and would be restricted if this ballot passes. Therefore, North Carolina recommends the following change, which incorporates additional clarity to the rule (note North Carolina currently cannot add strikethroughs and underlines so the change will be represented as amended): ".100 Upon request of a licensee in good standing, the base jurisdiction shall issue the licensee a 30-day IFTA temporary decal permit allowing the licensee to operate in all member jurisdictions for 30 days without displaying decals as required by R625. .200 The base jurisdiction may charge an administrative fee to the licensee to cover the cost of issuing the permit. The permit must: (1) be vehicle specific; (2) show the expiration date; and (3) be delivered to the licensee electronically or by facsimile. .300 For the permit to be valid, the licensee must carry the permit in the vehicle identified in the permit in either paper or electronic form."
OKLAHOMA	Undecided	Oklahoma supports the intent of this ballot, however the implementation as written could be problematic and could result in easily falsified decals. Oklahoma would support North Carolina’s alternative language for future implementation. Alternatively, a future ballot could mandate temporary decals include QR codes, linked to an issuing state’s IFTA system, to assist field enforcement verify authenticity and deter falsification. Oklahoma has implemented this method and would be happy to discuss its wider adoption.
ONTARIO	Oppose	Ontario has a single trip permit process in place that allows for a similar outcome sought by this ballot.
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	PA is admittedly struggling with this one. Although we understand and appreciate the intent, and PA does issue Temporary Decal Permits, we are concerned with this crossing a line into jurisdictional sovereignty. It might not be as much of a priority in some jurs and it raises challenges on how we would be able to identify the validity of all temporaries presented to law enforcement. Also, passing this into legislation, which would most surely be required for most (if not all) jurs, may be difficult. Having come from a law enforcement background and currently working in an administrative role, I can say from experience that it can be difficult to validate a temporary permit, especially if each jur has their own format, and we also recognize the difficulties that can arise from forcing a piece of legislation that now must be passed into jurisdictional law.
QUEBEC	Undecided	Quebec noted the same issue as the one raised by North Carolina, as the current wording of the ballot wouldn't allow the issuance of the temporary decal permits in any other form than electronically.
SASKATCHEWAN	Support	The changes noted in the ballot are current practice for SK.
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support
TENNESSEE	Support	Tennessee currently issues temporary IFTA permits.
VIRGINIA	Undecided
Support: 13 Oppose: 3 Undecided: 5

IFTA Ballot Comments

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2025

Address:

(480) 748 5648