IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

You can now browse through past ballot comments using the tools below.


1st Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2025

Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALBERTA
Undecided Alberta supports the intent of this ballot but would like clarification on how to verify or substantiate that a jurisdiction is no longer out of compliance with an issue that has been subject to a Final Determination of Non-Compliance under R1555.200.

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 R1545.300 to specify that the jurisdiction must not remain out of compliance with an issue that has been the subject of a Final Determination Finding of Non-Compliance (“FDFNC”) under R1555.200, rather than a jurisdiction having to comply with all provisions.
  •  It is noted that R1555.200 imposes a mandatory requirement on the Program Compliance Review Committee (“PCRC”) to forward to the IFTA Dispute Resolution Committee (“DRC”) an FDFNC, to be heard as a dispute, in cases where the FDFNC is related to sections R970, R1210, R1230, R1260, R1270, R1370, R1380, P1040, A250 or A260 (the “Dispute Sections”). Each of the Dispute Sections either directly or indirectly imposes a mandatory requirement on a jurisdiction.
  • It is agreed that the breadth of R1545.300 (in its current form) is unreasonable, as generally a jurisdiction should not be at risk of losing membership status on account of non-compliance that may be willingly corrected, particularly where the non-compliance is unintentional or as a result of something out of the jurisdiction’s control. However, the only rationale provided for the proposed amendment to R1545.300 is that R1555.200 defines the sections of the Agreement [and Audit Manual and Procedures Manual] that membership has determined are worthy of an FDFNC to be heard as a dispute by the DRC.
  •  It is noted that the Dispute Sections are not the only sections of the Agreement, Audit Manual and Procedures Manual that may be the subject of an FDFNC issued by the PCRC, but rather are merely the only matters coming from the PCRC that may be resolved under the Dispute Resolution Process (“DRP”) (as per R1555.100.015) and which must be forwarded to the DRC to be heard as a dispute (as per R1555.200).
  • The ballot does not provide any history or explanation as to why the Dispute Sections were determined by past members as being worthy of an FDFNC to be heard as a dispute, as opposed to other sections under the Agreement, Audit Manual and Procedures Manual that are the subject of an FDFNC and/or other sections that also impose mandatory requirements, some of which are in respect of fairness and others that impact the tax base of other jurisdictions (for example, R1240, which effectively requires jurisdictions to collect tax, or P1110, which requires jurisdictions to submit an annual report).
  • At a minimum, it would be useful for the ballot to be updated to provide some contextual history in respect of R1555, as well as to clarify, for example, that the sponsor reviewed all of the mandatory impositions in the Agreement, Audit Manual and Procedures Manual, and is of the opinion that the Dispute Sections impose the most significant requirements necessary to ensure the effective administration of the IFTA program, and non-compliance with one of the Dispute Sections would have the most significant negative impact on other member jurisdictions as compared to other requirements. Therefore, they are of the opinion that non-compliance with one of the Dispute Sections (or being out of compliance with an issue that is the subject of an FDFNC under R1555.200) is reasonable grounds for loss of active membership status, including loss of voting privileges.
  • The reference to “Non Compliance” within the proposed amendment should be hyphenated for consistency with the references to “Non-Compliance” in R1555.200.
  • It is noted that R420.100 (re: License Suspension and Revocation) of the Agreement states, “Failure to comply with all applicable provisions of this Agreement shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the license issued under this Agreement”. The reference to “all applicable provisions” is, like the wording of R1545.300, overly broad and potentially unreasonable in various circumstances. Accordingly, it is suggested that the wording of R420.100 be reviewed and amendments proposed in a future ballot, if considered appropriate.
  • Please also be aware the changes on this ballot where in regular blank ink wherein other ballots show changes in red.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Undecided

Industry Advisory Committee
The IAC recommends that any changes to Section R1545 Active Membership Status include an addition of a section—similar in structure to R1550—that outlines how changes in membership status, including the expulsion provisions under R1555.300, will be communicated to jurisdictions and motor carriers. Clear guidance is needed to address the procedural and operational impacts of such changes, particularly regarding the responsibilities and compliance expectations of motor carriers if a jurisdiction is no longer considered an active member. Defining these elements will help ensure consistency, minimize confusion, and support transparency across the Agreement.

IOWA
Support Iowa is in favor of this ballot. 

KANSAS
Undecided

KENTUCKY
Support

MANITOBA
Undecided

MARYLAND
Oppose

MICHIGAN
Support

NEVADA
Undecided Agree with NC. It seems, as written, that losing active membership is a harsh penalty to impose on all types of infractions.

NEW BRUNSWICK
Support

NEWFOUNDLAND
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Undecided North Carolina is concerned about this ballot. This is an exemplar of understanding the impact of first and second order effects.
 
North Carolina concedes that the first-order effects the sponsor attempts to address should be fixed: losing active membership status for any failure to comply with the Agreement (R1545.300) is too harsh. However, the sponsor has failed to consider the second-order effects that will result from this ballot. North Carolina strongly believes that the direction for this organization should not be to strike R1545.300, but to provide a series of tiered consequences for jurisdictions who fail to comply with the governing documents outside of R1555.200.
 
North Carolina is concerned that the sponsor has effectively interpreted R1555.200 as the only section “worthy” of enforcing. North Carolina believes that all requirements placed on jurisdictions are “worthy” of enforcing. In other words, the IFTA governing documents place many duties on jurisdictions outside of R1555.200. These duties serve to protect other jurisdictions and the licensees we regulate. If this ballot moves forward, neither jurisdictions nor licensees will have formal tools to ensure compliance with the governing documents.
 
For example, let’s apply the second order effects to the ballots currently before membership.
 
The first ballot modifies the duties of jurisdictions when submitting an annual report. If a jurisdiction fails to include this information, what tools do the other jurisdictions have to correct the report and ensure compliance moving forward?
 
The second ballot modifies when a jurisdiction must participate in a compliance review. If a jurisdiction fails to participate, what tools do the other jurisdictions have to correct the lack of participation and ensure participation moving forward?
 
The fifth ballot requires jurisdictions to issue temporary decal permits that must contain certain information and be delivered in a certain way. If a jurisdiction fails to comply with requirements concerning decal permits, what tools do the other jurisdictions have to correct the practices around these decals and ensure compliance moving forward? Also, any complaint raised by a licensee unable to acquire a temporary decal permit will be similarly without a remedy if the licensee files a compliance dispute under R1555.100.010.
 
The eighth ballot governs the transmission of data by jurisdictions.  If a jurisdiction fails to comply with the R2120, what tools do the other jurisdictions have to correct the data transmittals and ensure compliance moving forward?

OKLAHOMA
Oppose Oklahoma has concerns that compliance is specific to only one rule and the ballot restricts compliance efforts arbitrarily. 

ONTARIO
Undecided Ontario agrees jurisdictions should not lose membership status for every act of non-compliance, but we would like to see this change take place in the context of a ballot that includes how to enforce provisions not addressed under R1555.

PENNSYLVANIA
Support

QUEBEC
Undecided While Quebec acknowledge the intent of the ballot, we noted the wording leads to uncertainty regarding the status as an active member and as noted by other jurisdictions, the references to other sections of the agreement might need review.

SASKATCHEWAN
Undecided Clarification is needed on the timing of when the membership and voting rights would be revoked in order to fully support this ballot. Is it at the point of the Final Determination Finding of Non Compliance being written up, or not until the Dispute Resolution Committee reviews the non-compliance issue and makes that decision?

TENNESSEE
Undecided

VIRGINIA
Undecided It is Virginia’s understanding that this ballot would restrict the circumstances under which a finding of noncompliance by the Dispute Resolution Committee, in a dispute between member jurisdictions, could lead to a loss of a member jurisdiction’s active membership status. Specifically, under this ballot such a penalty would only be available in cases where the dispute either was referred to the DRC from the Program Compliance Review Committee after a FDFNC, or where the dispute involved a matter under R1545 .100 or .200.
Support: 6
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 11