IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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


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: 17
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 0