1. Current Issues in Motor-Fuel Barna Juhasz Director, Office of Highway Policy Information February 19, 2003

2. 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

3. Getting Acquainted

4. How many State representatives? State DOT’s? Other State agencies? How many FHWA representatives? How many Division Office attendees? How many Resource Center attendees? Anyone else?

5. Getting Acquainted How many work as planners? How many auditors? How many financial managers? How many analysts? How many managers? Anyone else?

6. 47 27 5 1 0 Motor Fuel Related Statistics

7. 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

8. 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

9. “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….”

10. “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…”

11. 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

12. TEA-21

13. Motor Fuel System Flow Chart (pre-2002) Revenue Departments ExcelSpreadsheets Reviews 551M/556 Table Generation State DOT Hard Copy 551M/556 FHWA Division Highway Statistics Revisions Including Model Data Apportionment Funds FHWA HQ Apportionment Factors

14. FHWA Motor-Fuel Reassessment Purpose Purpose Identify any changes needed to assure fair & equitable treatment of all States Identify any changes needed to assure fair & equitable treatment of all States Established outside working group Established outside working group State DOT’s, DOR’s, FHWA DO’s State DOT’s, DOR’s, FHWA DO’s Identified weaknesses Identified weaknesses Methodology Methodology Processing Processing

15. FHWA Reassessment Findings

16. Motor Fuel “Smart System” Flow Chart Revenue Departments State Agencies Website Reviews 551M/556 Table Generation Revisions State DOT Submit 551M/556 FHWA Division Highway Statistics FHWA HQ Apportionment Factors

17. 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

18. GAO Review

20. GAO #1: Ensure independent verification of State data

21. GAO #2: Fully document attribution methodology Multi-level documentation strategy August 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”

26. 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

27. Workshop Charge Need your input to improve existing process Need to learn from you Jointly improve the process