IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2025

Jurisdiction Position Comments
Support: 8
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 0

ALBERTA		 Support

BRITISH COLUMBIA		 Oppose Understand the intent but this has never been an issue and doesn't seem likely that anyone would pursue enforcement actions against jurisdictions for minor compliance issues. 

I understand there is a board charge to review the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) and recommend waiting until this has been completed. Further to Illinois' comments on "active membership", there may be an opportunity to link the concept of "active membership" with the DRP.

CONNECTICUT		 Support

ILLINOIS		 Oppose Position: Oppose as drafted.
1. Function of Section 1545 is unclear:  There does not appear to be a process to determine specifically that a licensee does or does not have “active membership status.”  A licensee can lose voting privileges as a result of the dispute resolution process (IFTA Dispute Resolution Process Manual, Part V, Remedies) or be expelled under IFTA Articles of Agreement Section 1555.300, but there is no process related to “active membership status”.  As a result, Section 1545 has an ambiguous function at the outset, seeming primarily to be a discussion point, rather than a functional provision.  Changing 1545.300 does not appear to move the ball since it appears that a licensee’s “active” status is really based on two possible outcomes of 1) loss of voting power and 2) expulsion.
2. Timing/Finality:  If Section R1545 is to have a function, a timing element is required.  “Not remaining out of compliance [for one minute?] [for 60 days?] [for one year?]. . . .  In addition, the status should be based on a final, unappealable determination of non-compliance under R1555.200.
3. Alternative:  The goal is to remove non-material Agreement violations from rendering a jurisdiction “inactive” (although it should be noted again that this provision has no procedure to do so anyway).  It is suggested that the language, instead of referring to R1555.200, name the substantive requirements that a licensee must comply with to retain active membership status.  Then, conclude the list with a catch-all that draws the materiality line with language such as “or other material violation of the Agreement”.  Then, define what material means in this context.
 

KENTUCKY		 Support

MANITOBA		 Support

MICHIGAN		 Support

NEVADA		 Oppose Nevada still stands with first round comment and agrees with North Carolina's first round comment. 

NEW BRUNSWICK		 Support

NEWFOUNDLAND		 Support

NORTH CAROLINA		 Oppose North Carolina is confused with the ballot "changes" after the ballot failed at the ABM. Instead of addressing concerns raised by membership and making changes to the ballot language, the sponsor has decided to explain in further detail why the ballot is needed. North Carolina concedes this point.
 
As noted in North Carolina's previous comment:
 
"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."
 
Ultimately, this ballot may solve one issue only to create new ones, which is highlighted by Illinois' comment.
 
Only expanding on the history of the ballot and not addressing the substantive issues of the ballot leaves North Carolina in the same position it was in at the ABM: "No."

ONTARIO		 Support

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND		 Oppose

QUEBEC		 Oppose While the jurisdiction of Quebec acknowledges the intent of the ballot, we should point out that the language creates uncertainty regarding the delay to correct a situation related to a non compliance notice. 

We also refer to Illinois and North Carolina's comments, which are insightful and reflects our jurisdiction's point of view.

VIRGINIA		 Oppose Virginia's concerns remain the same as those articulated in our comments on the previous version of the ballot.

WEST VIRGINIA		 Oppose
Support: 8
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 0

© Copyright 2025 IFTA, Inc. All Rights Reserved