Post on 03-Jan-2016
transcript
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