Current Issues in Motor-Fuel

Barna JuhaszDirector, Office of Highway Policy InformationFebruary 19, 2003

Why are we here? Ensure that each State receives its

share of Highway Trust Fund consistent with Title 23 U.S.C.

Ensure that each State is providing reliable, accurate motor-fuel data

Recognize efforts to date to ensure quality motor-fuel data

Get your input as to how we continue to make process improvements

Getting Acquainted

47 27 5 1 0

Motor Fuel Related Statistics

47 States Using “Smart” Tool 27 Motor Fuel Reviews Initiated 5 States with Gasohol Issues 1 Error 0 Still the Expectation

Motor Fuel Related Statistics

Key Areas

Discuss data quality concepts

TEA-21 Effects

Overview of the process as it existed in 1999 & as it exists today

Recognize FHWA Motor-Fuel Reassessment

GAO review of the motor-fuel attribution process and their recommendations

“Plain English on Data Quality: Seven Deadly Misconceptions”

Properties of Quality Information “….quality in all characteristics ….

completeness, accuracy, timeliness, clarity of presentation…”

“…. must consistently meet knowledge worker and end-customer expectations….”

“Plain English on Data Quality: Seven Deadly Misconceptions”

“….process of information quality improvement is one of continuous improvement of any and all processes to eliminate the causes of all defective data…”

Office of Highway Policy Information (OHPI)

Interpretation

Quality Information Requires Quality in Each Step of the Information Process From definition of data to be collected Through collection, reporting, processing Through assessment and analysis Through presentation and dissemination

TEA-21 EffectsMinimum GuaranteeNo State’s return is less than 90.5% of the estimated percentage of estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in each StateMotor Fuel consumption on highways is the significant variable in the calculationMore than $12 billion per year

TEA-21

Motor Fuel System Flow Chart(pre-2002)

Revenue Revenue DepartmentsDepartments

ExcelExcelSpreadsheetsSpreadsheets

Reviews 551M/556

TableGeneration

State DOTState DOT

Hard Copy 551M/556

FHWA FHWA DivisionDivision

Highway Statistics

Revisions Including

Model DataApportionment

Funds

FHWA HQ Apportionment Factors

FHWA Motor-Fuel ReassessmentPurposePurpose

Identify any changes needed to assure Identify any changes needed to assure fair & equitable treatment of all Statesfair & equitable treatment of all States

Established outside working groupEstablished outside working groupState DOT’s, DOR’s, FHWA DO’sState DOT’s, DOR’s, FHWA DO’s

Identified weaknessesIdentified weaknessesMethodologyMethodology

ProcessingProcessing

Existing process consistent with Congress’s intent to return Highway Trust Fund receipts to highway users in the State where the fuel is consumed and the user pays the taxesImprovements are needed Process is antiquated, staff intensive; relies

heavily on Hdqrtrs staff to correct State submitted data

Overall data collection & processing unchanged from mainframe technology

FHWA Reassessment Findings

Motor Fuel “Smart System” Flow Chart

Revenue Revenue DepartmentsDepartments

State State AgenciesAgencies

WebsiteWebsite

Reviews 551M/556

TableGeneration

Revisions

State DOTState DOT

Submit 551M/556

FHWA FHWA DivisionDivision

Highway Statistics

FHWA HQApportionme

nt Factors

OHIP Quality Initiatives

Involve State as partners Use State data to the maximum extent possible 100% electronic data submission Develop “smart” system including “smart” data submittal tool

Initiated at behest of CongressParalleled FHWA effortVery cooperative effort

GAO Review

Replace existing triennial reviewsMotor Fuel Reporting Oversight Team Developed process Use continuous process improvement

approach DO’s to conduct “baseline” review in FY02 Incorporate risk assessment Future activities dependent on risk factors,

including staff turnover, process errors found, etc.

GAO #1: Ensure independent verification of State data

GAO #2: Fully document attribution methodology

Multi-level documentation strategyAugust 1998 – “TEA-21 and Estimates of Highway Trust Fund Receipts Attributable to States”

December 2000 – “Your State’s Share: Attributing Federal Highway Revenues to Each State”

Spring 2001 – Draft “Abbreviated System Documentation”

September 2001 – “FHWA Form 551-M Input Tool User’s Guide”

July 2002 – “Attribution and Apportionment of Federal Highway Tax Revenues”

GAO #3: Conduct Independent Comprehensive Review of Methodology

August 2001 - Contracted for reviewWork plan addresses System performance Data processing Data quality Risk Institutional elements

GAO #4: Evaluate reliability of IRS’s Ex-FIRS data to validate State data

July 2001 - Met with IRSOctober 2001 – first data reports due to IRSSeptember 2002 – Met again with IRS Isufficient data for analysis

FHWA will continue to monitor and evaluate data

Conclusion Efforts consistent with GAO recommendationsSupport FHWA quality effortsTogether our efforts will ensure we have an enhanced process that ensures each State gets it fair share of $$$Meets the expectations of TEA-21 with up-to-data business processes and information technology.

Operating Philosophy In the future, we want to use State submitted data, not data which we have to massage and rework to reflect what we believe is correct The best data is the data the States use in

their own decision-making We want that data, not something they put

together to just satisfy the Feds

OHIP Quality Initiatives

Have adopted this concept for all our data series Moving forward in all data series Addressing each in turn as resources permit

Workshop Charge

Need your input to improve existing process Need to learn from you Jointly improve the process