IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

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: 5 Oppose: 6 Undecided: 7

IFTA Ballot Comments

2nd Period Comments on BALLOT #2 - 2022

Address:

(480) 748 5648