Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

xxiii (IRS); national technology specifications and certification; and enabling or conforming state legislation. Finally, while VMT are projected to grow more quickly than fuel consumption in future years, it would still be appropriate in principle to index, or periodically increase, VMT fees to prevent the erosion of real revenue due to inflation. There is no indication that such increases would be easier to make, politically, than raising current fuel taxes. These issues merit careful consideration in the debate of whether, and at what pace, to pursue a transition from fuel taxes to VMT fees. S.9. The Path Forward While each of the three most promising options for the near-term implementation of VMT fees presents its own set of strengths and limitations, there remain many uncertainties regarding the likely costs and capabilities of certain administrative and technical components. This makes it difficult, absent additional targeted research, to specify with precision the optimal configuration for implementation by 2015. Should the decision be made to develop a national system of VMT fees within an expedited timeframe, however, the evidence from prior studies and trials makes it possible to outline a set of planning and development steps that may offer sufficient flexibility to manage the risk surrounding remaining uncertainties. The steps include: • Pay at the pump. Implement the pay-at-the-pump collection system as the base platform for charging conventionally-fueled vehicles. This option appears to offer the lowest collection cost over time, provides for a relatively seamless transition between fuel taxes and VMT fees as vehicles are equipped with the requisite metering technology, and can be used with any of the three recommended metering options. • Central billing. Develop a central billing agency that supports wireless data transmission to provide a payment mechanism for alternative-fuel vehicles that do not need to visit fuel stations. Initially this will be needed for only a small percentage of cars, but the percentage should grow with time. • Targeted research. Pursue targeted research to resolve uncertainties regarding the cost and capabilities of alternate in-vehicle equipment options. • In-vehicle metering equipment. Proceed with the production of in-vehicle metering equipment based on the findings of the research and development efforts. In addition to these specific steps on the path to implementation, the research suggests two additional strategies that may help to reduce system costs and speed the transition period. The first is the idea of a voluntary “opt-in” system in which vehicle owners, though not required to retrofit existing vehicles with metering equipment, are provided with incentives—reduced cost, increased convenience, and access to desired add-on functionality such as in-vehicle navigation or real-time traveler information—for choosing to do so. It is possible that the transition period, during which adoption of the metering equipment would be optional, could involve a large increase in fuel taxes to provide additional motivation for drivers to shift to VMT fees. The second idea, complementary to the first, can be described as an “open systems” approach to technology procurement. A national set of minimal requirements for the metering technology would be specified, and then multiple vendors would develop conforming products and compete for market share on the basis of price as well as attractive user-oriented features. This would serve to drive down the cost of the equipment over time, and it also allows for the ongoing adoption and incorporation of new technologies that emerge over time.

xxiv S.10. Preparatory Tasks While the task of preparing to implement a national VMT fee system by 2015 would be complex and demanding, the goal could nonetheless be possible. To bolster the prospects for success, however, it would be extremely beneficial – likely necessary – to fund a coordinated set of preparatory activities, spanning the areas of planning, research, technology development, larger- scale trials, and education and outreach: • Planning. Developing and implementing a national system of VMT fees would be a massive undertaking, likely requiring a designated entity, granted the requisite level of authority, to shepherd these efforts. Specific tasks include specifying the entity to lead this undertaking, including an avenue for the participation of relevant stakeholders, and providing funding commensurate with the entity’s responsibilities. • Analytic studies. To better understand the likely costs and benefits of alternate system design options, it would be beneficial to pursue several targeted analytic studies. Specific issues of interest include the behavioral response to alternate forms of pricing, revenue production for alternate forms of pricing, cost estimates for alternate in-vehicle equipment configurations produced at scale, cost estimates for the installation of alternate in-vehicle equipment configurations, cost estimates for equipping fueling stations with electronic readers, cost estimates for collecting revenue via the pay-at-the-pump model, and cost estimates for developing and operating a central billing agency. • Technical research and development. Though many of the potentially relevant implementation technologies have already been proven in real-world trials and are well understood, there are several components that could benefit from further research and development. Specific areas of focus should include developing and demonstrating the use of cellular equipment to meter the location of travel, evaluating alternate AVI configurations to support pay-at-the-pump collections as well as DSRC tolling on specific road segments, and investigating low cost and effective enforcement options to prevent tampering with the OBU. • VMT-fee system trials. Several significant VMT-fee system trials – in Oregon, in Puget Sound, at the University of Iowa, and at the Georgia Institute of Technology – have already been completed or are currently underway. While these efforts offer valuable insights and information, it would be beneficial to invest in additional VMT-fee trials on the path to implementation in 2015. Key goals for these trials would include evaluating certain technical options or components for which more practical experience would be valuable; exploring the cost and reliability of alternate collection and enforcement mechanisms; and scaling the experiments to include more participants and more states. • Public education and outreach. In considering the public acceptability of VMT fees, the experts consulted in this project offered two salient observations. First, there is little public understanding of the current challenges in transportation finance, and in turn the motivations for a transition to VMT fees. Second, the privacy concerns associated with GPS remain a potent obstacle to the acceptance of sophisticated in-vehicle metering equipment. To bolster the prospects for transitioning to a VMT-fee system, concerted public education and outreach would likely be imperative. Key efforts here would include identifying the most promising education and outreach strategies, determining who should spearhead the effort, and conducting the education and outreach activities.

1 1. INTRODUCTION Motor fuel excise taxes have served as the principal mechanism for raising highway revenue at the federal and state level for most of the past century. Despite several compelling advantages, their utility in this role over the coming decades may be limited by a combination of structural and political factors. This has led to the suggestion that fuel taxes should be replaced by a system of user fees, enabled by modern electronic tolling technology, based on vehicle miles of travel (VMT). VMT fees would overcome some of the revenue challenges faced by fuel taxes while simultaneously providing a means for addressing several other important policy goals. The State of Oregon and the Puget Sound Regional Council have recently conducted trials demonstrating the feasibility and potential utility of VMT-based fee systems, and the University of Iowa is currently operating six additional research trials. While the results of these initial efforts are encouraging, the in-vehicle technology developed to support VMT fees is sophisticated, including the use of global positioning system (GPS) receivers. Because it would prove costly to retrofit the entire existing vehicle fleet with the necessary VMT metering equipment, and because many among the public are wary of the privacy concerns that arise with GPS, most recent proposals have suggested phasing in a VMT-fee system gradually, over a period of perhaps 10 to 15 years. This would allow the required technology to be installed with new vehicle purchases, and it would also provide more time for public education and outreach campaigns to explain the motivations for switching from fuel taxes to VMT fees and assure the public that the necessary technical and programmatic safeguards have been instituted to protect the privacy of their personal travel data. Yet the challenges motivating a switch to VMT fees—in particular, the insolvency of the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) resulting from the real decline in fuel tax revenues—are urgent. As such, there is keen interest in determining whether it might be possible to develop a national system for VMT fees that could be implemented within the next few years. The goal of this project is to identify, evaluate, and suggest mechanisms for near-term implementation of VMT fees, considering a broad range of technical, political, administrative, and legal factors, and to outline the steps that would be required to put such a system in place by 2015. The analysis considers the possibility that states might wish to make use of this same system to implement their own VMT fees, but this would be optional. 1.1. Background Motor fuel taxes have been the principal source of highway funding at the state and federal level for close to a century, accounting for about $68 billion—about 64 percent of all highway user fees and about 50 percent of all highway expenditures—as of 2004 (TRB 2005). As a source of highway revenue, fuel taxes have performed well in many regards. They are inexpensive to administer, typically costing less than one percent of revenue collections. And because gasoline taxes are levied at the wholesale level, enforcement is relatively straightforward (note, however, that enforcement issues are somewhat more challenging with diesel fuel taxes, which apply to

2 on-road vehicles but not off-road uses). Fuel taxes also create a financial incentive for the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Finally, fuel taxes, as a form of user fees, create a principled linkage between the costs and benefits of using the road network, promoting greater equity and efficiency (Wachs 2003). The Decline of Motor Fuel Taxes. Despite such advantages, the efficacy of fuel taxes as a source of highway revenue has been increasingly undermined in recent decades by a confluence of structural and political factors. Because motor fuel excise taxes at the federal level and in many states are levied on a cents-per-gallon basis, they must be raised periodically to offset the effects of inflation and improved fuel economy. With rising anti-tax sentiment among the populace, elected officials have become wary of this politically unpopular task, and the frequency and magnitude of the recent fuel tax increases has been grossly insufficient to maintain comparable purchasing power in terms of real revenue per mile of travel. Real highway spending per mile of travel in the United States has declined by about 50 percent since the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was established in the late 1950s, and the federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993 – the year in which the gas tax was last raised (NSTIFC 2009). As another example, though the California state excise tax for gasoline has increased from 7 cents per gallon in 1970 to 18 cents today, the real revenue per mile of travel – considering inflation and improved fuel economy over the same period – has declined by about 70 percent (Sorensen et al. 2008). Such reductions help to explain the growing shortfall in funding available to maintain, let alone expand, our nation’s road infrastructure. In the near term, these challenges could be overcome by raising existing fuel taxes and simultaneously indexing them for inflation. Continued reliance on fuel taxes as the primary source of road revenue over the longer term, however, becomes problematic, for several reasons. First, the prospect of significantly higher fuel prices in the future may stimulate demand for a much more efficient fleet of conventionally powered vehicles. Additionally, as alternative fuel vehicles begin to achieve market penetration, a greater share of the motoring public may be able to avoid paying motor fuel taxes by, for instance, charging an electric vehicle at home or at work. Finally, concerns regarding climate change and energy independence may well stimulate concerted federal policy action to sharply reduce fossil fuel consumption in the coming years. Relying heavily on fuel tax revenues while simultaneously striving to reduce fuel consumption would spell certain trouble for the future health of transportation finance in this country. Such considerations, in concert with the development of sophisticated electronic tolling technologies, have fostered a growing interest in transitioning to a system of road finance centered on VMT fees rather than fuel tax revenues. The Allure of VMT Fees. Because VMT fees would be based on the amount of travel rather than the amount or type of fuel consumed, such a system would eliminate concerns over the effects of improved fuel economy or greater adoption of alternative fuel vehicles on available transportation revenues. Moreover, if the system is capable of establishing where the travel miles occur, the resulting revenue stream can be accurately apportioned among multiple jurisdictions. Additional potential benefits may include reducing traffic congestion, adverse health effects from criteria pollutant emissions, and mitigating the looming threat of climate change. For instance, the per-mile charge could be increased on busy routes during peak hours to combat congestion,

3 and it could similarly be increased for the most heavily polluting vehicles to promote faster adoption of more environmentally benign options. The Challenge of VMT Fees. Given the potential benefits of a system of VMT fees, the concept has received considerable attention to date. The State of Oregon (Whitty 2007) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC 2008) have recently conducted successful pilot tests demonstrating the feasibility and utility of VMT-based charging systems, the University of Iowa (Forkenbrock 2006) has six trials underway in various locations across the country, and the State of Minnesota is preparing to conduct a similar pilot program (Starr 2009). While the results are encouraging, the technical configuration of the in-vehicle equipment required to enable a highly flexible system of road use charges (e.g. allowing the per-mile fee to vary by jurisdiction, by time of travel, by route of travel, or by vehicle characteristics) is quite sophisticated, incorporating features such as GPS receivers, digital road network or jurisdictional maps, and one or more forms of wireless communications. Although it would be possible to retrofit the existing vehicle fleet with such equipment, it would no doubt prove a costly endeavor. At the same time, there is concern among the public that the use of GPS-based metering equipment would violate the privacy of personal travel information. Though the privacy of travel data can be protected through both technical and programmatic design, it is clear that further public education and outreach will be needed to convey the motivations for switching to VMT fees and provide the assurance of suitable privacy protection. Accordingly, most proposals for implementing a robust and extensible system of VMT fees have envisioned a gradual transition of perhaps 10 to 15 years (e.g., Whitty 2003, TRB 2005, NSTIFC 2009). Over this period, the required in-vehicle equipment might be phased in with the purchase of new vehicles, or vehicle owners might choose to adopt the technology on a voluntary basis in return for certain incentives (e.g., lower road use charges, or the availability of additional GPS- enabled functionality such as navigation and real-time traveler information). Until the phase-in period is completed, vehicles lacking the required technology would continue to pay fuel taxes, while those with the technology would pay mileage charges instead. 1.2. Motivation for and Scope of Study While a compelling case can be made for planning to phase in a sophisticated system of VMT fees over a longer period of time, the challenges that motivate this shift – notably the large and growing shortfall in transportation revenue at all levels of government – are urgent. With the HTF facing insolvency (NSTIFC 2009), there is growing interest among transportation decision makers in determining whether it would be possible to configure a simpler system for metering and assessing VMT fees that could be implemented on a national scale much more quickly – within approximately five years – and serve as an intermediate transition to a more sophisticated VMT-based system over the longer term. To explore this possibility, the National Highway Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP), at the request of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), funded NCHRP Project 20-24 (69), “Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding,” in early 2009. This report documents the results of this study.

4 As set forth in the request for proposals, the objectives of NCHRP Project 20-24 (69) include (1) identifying and evaluating potential solutions that could be developed between 2010 and 2015; (2) converging upon one or more options that offer the greatest promise for near-term implementation; (3) outlining the shorter-term actions necessary to achieve implementation of an interim VMT-fee system; and (4) identifying a longer-term strategy for making a smooth and effective transition from the near-term VMT-fee mechanism to a more sophisticated, robust, and sustainable system of VMT fees in future years. To fully address these questions, the analysis of options and strategies considers a range of salient factors such as capital and operating costs, revenue implications, administrative requirements and challenges, federal and state legislative issues, public and political acceptability, additional burden on users, privacy concerns, enforcement challenges, and ability to address additional policy aims of interest, such as reducing road wear, traffic congestion, and harmful emissions. 1.3. Research Approach Within the request for proposals, the project panel for NCHRP Project 20-24 (69) specified a set of eight tasks needed to achieve the goals of the study. The tasks can be summarized as follows: • Task 1. Holding a kickoff meeting between the project panel and research team to review project goals and research approach • Task 2. Conducting background research into the conceptual, technical, legal, administrative, political, and practical issues that could affect the feasibility and relative desirability of alternate VMT-fee implementation mechanisms; additionally, identifying and summarizing available VMT forecasts • Task 3. Distilling the key elements of a VMT-fee system and identifying a set of potential VMT-fee implementation mechanisms • Task 4. Developing a general approach and relevant criteria for assessing the available mechanisms and evaluating each option according to that framework • Task 5. Selecting one or more options that appears to hold the greatest promise and refining the analysis of administrative and enforcement costs, institutional considerations, and implementation obstacles; additionally, identifying data and methods that states could use to forecast VMT revenues • Task 6. Conducting a one-day workshop with panel members and other subject matter experts to review findings and consider the necessary steps for transitioning to a VMT-based system of user fees • Task 7. Drafting the final report • Task 8. Revising the final report Across these tasks, the research effort benefited, at multiple points, from input, comments, and feedback offered by a range of stakeholders and subject matter experts. These interactions can be summarized as follows:

5 • Project panel interactions. The research team met, via teleconference, with the project panel during Task 1 to receive guidance on project goals and the proposed research plan. At the conclusion of Task 4, the research team provided the panel with a document describing the preliminary results of Tasks 2, 3, and 4. At the beginning of Task 5, the research team again met with the panel via teleconference to discuss the results of the earlier tasks and select the most promising VMT-fee mechanisms for further exploration. After analyzing these options in greater depth, the research team provided additional documentation to the project panel at the end of Task 5. This served as the basis for discussion during the Task 6 workshop, which was attended by many of the panel members (along with other subject matter experts). Finally, for Task 7 the research team provided a draft version of the final report for panel feedback and comment. • State interviews. Many of the potential near-term VMT-fee implementation options (for example, conducting annual odometer readings) would require the support of state governments. To gain greater insight into state perspectives on the prospects for VMT fees, during Task 2 the research team interviewed department of transportation (DOT) and department of motor vehicles (DMV) or motor vehicle administration (MVA) officials from seven states: California, Minnesota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia (several of these states were represented on the project panel; others were contacted independently). The interview questions focused on such issues as current revenue systems, perceptions of conceptually similar trans-state revenue collection and sharing programs such as the International Registration Plan (IRP) and the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), tax enforcement and evasion challenges, attitudes towards VMT fees, and potential barriers and solutions. • Other interviews. As part of the research efforts in Tasks 2 through 5, the team also contacted experts in other related fields, including insurance companies offering pay-as-you- drive insurance, federal officials who forecast VMT, researchers involved with conducting VMT metering and pricing trials, and state tax collection agencies. These interviews helped the team understand the current state of technology, VMT forecasts, and tax collections. • Expert workshop: In Task 6 the research team presented preliminary results from Tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 to a panel of subject matter experts for review and commentary. In addition to many of the project panel members, the workshop included officials from the U.S. Treasury and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), senior congressional staff, state DOT and DMV officials, representatives from road user advocacy organizations, and individuals with relevant expertise in the areas of state legislative issues, electronic tolling technology, VMT- fee trials, and pay-as-you-drive insurance. 1.4. Summary of Findings The analysis conducted by the research team, in concert with feedback from the project panel and other subject matter experts, leads to a series of findings relevant to funding deliberations. • There are significant reasons to transition from fuel taxes to VMT fees. First and foremost, this shift could help to preserve or augment transportation revenue. It could also provide a potent policy lever for mitigating such problems as traffic congestion and pollutant emissions, which could be achieved by varying the per-mile rate based on relevant vehicle

6 characteristics (size, weight, fuel economy, emissions) as well as the time and location of travel. Finally, it could result in a more equitable system of transportation funding, in which the fees charged to each driver would align with the benefits received from (or costs imposed upon) the system. • VMT fees also present two significant challenges: first, switching to VMT fees from fuel taxes would not eliminate the need to periodically increase the rate in order to offset inflation; second, the administration of VMT fees would likely be more costly and burdensome than fuel tax collection. A major limitation of current fuel taxes has been the political difficulty of instituting periodic increases to offset improved fuel economy and inflation. VMT fees would neutralize the issue of improved fuel economy (and, for that matter, fuel type), but it would still be appropriate in principle to index, or periodically increase, VMT fees to prevent the erosion of real revenue due to inflation. There is no indication that such increases would be easier to make, politically, than raising current fuel taxes. In addition, although further research is needed to provide more precise cost estimates, experience to date suggests that VMT fees would be more expensive – likely much more expensive – to collect than fuel taxes. They also would require either a significantly expanded or entirely new administrative apparatus to support collection and enforcement activities. • Many potential VMT metering and charging systems could, from a technical perspective, be implemented within a few years. The options vary widely in their technical complexity and metering capabilities, ranging from simple odometer readings to capture total mileage to sophisticated in-vehicle equipment featuring GPS receivers to meter travel by time and location. • Each of the available options faces one or more significant drawbacks that would argue against immediate implementation for all vehicles at the national scale. Some options would be very difficult to enforce or expensive to administer, undermining the near-term goal of raising transportation revenue. Others, while less expensive to administer, would require significant start up costs. Still others may face stiff public resistance, due in large part to concerns over privacy issues. Finally, some options would require significant support from state governments, regardless of whether states wished to implement their own state-level VMT fees. Given that there are no low cost, low risk solutions, it would be beneficial at this juncture to fund additional research, developing, and planning efforts to ensure the best and most efficient system design choices when the transition is made. • Transportation funding deliberations provide an opportunity to conduct activities to prepare for initiating a potential transition to VMT fees in 2015 (or perhaps sooner). Areas include (a) targeted research and development to better understand the cost, feasibility, and effectiveness of alternate technical configurations to support the functions of metering, collections, enforcement, and privacy protection; (b) additional trials scaled to include trucks as well as passenger vehicles, both operating across multiple states; and (c) outreach and educational efforts to communicate the motivations for switching to VMT fees and clarify the manner in which privacy will be protected. To set public expectations, the messaging around these activities should be clear: the goal is not to determine whether it makes sense to pursue VMT fees, but rather to gain the necessary insight to ensure that the transition can be achieved as effectively and efficiently as possible.

7 • Once initiated, the transition to VMT fees may occur more rapidly than expected. Researchers and analysts have developed several intriguing options, involving both carrots and sticks, that would promote more rapid adoption of the required metering equipment on a voluntary basis. It may also be helpful to develop a set of minimum standards for the required in-vehicle equipment and then allow vendors to compete – on the basis of price and desirable add-on end-user features (navigation, real-time traffic and parking information, etc.) – for market share. This would lead to the development of devices that are more attractive to users, fostering voluntary adoption in the near term, while simultaneously driving down equipment costs. It would also open the door for the adoption of more advanced technology as innovations occur. • If desired, weight-distance truck tolls could be planned and implemented now. The principal concerns limiting the deployment of GPS-based equipment for passenger vehicles in the near term – the high cost of retrofitting the existing vehicle fleet and public fears over the potential invasion of privacy – are less relevant for the trucking industry, which has a much higher cost structure and is already heavily regulated. To forestall opposition, it would likely prove necessary to structure the program in such a manner that the trucking industry receives clear benefits as well. Possibilities include allowing trucks to carry larger loads in dedicated corridors, dedicating some share of the revenue to truck-only infrastructure, and streamlining burdensome regulatory compliance requirements (e.g., automating the reporting of miles by state under the International Registration Plan). Successful implementations already exist in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany, and in each case the systems were developed in just a few years. 1.5. Organization of Report The remainder of the report is organized as follows. One of the key motivations for transitioning to VMT fees, as noted, is to maintain or augment available transportation revenue. To quantify this potential, Chapter 2 reviews data sources and methodologies that would enable states to forecast future VMT-fee revenue. It also provides illustrative VMT-fee revenue forecasts at the national scale under the assumption of an initially revenue-neutral transition from fuel taxes to VMT fees beginning in 2015. The results offer strong support for a shift to VMT fees. The confluence of enabling technology and growing transportation revenue shortfalls have stimulated significant interest in mileage-based pricing options in recent years. Chapter 3 examines programs and proposals that may provide relevant technical, political, or institutional guidance relevant to the development of a VMT-fee system. The examples reviewed fall in three broad categories: general-purpose distance-based pricing programs, automated weight-distance truck tolls, and pay-as-you-drive insurance programs. Depending on a range of system design choices, levying VMT fees at the national scale could require significant involvement and assistance by states. For this reason, the research team interviewed DOT and DMV/MVA representatives in several states to gain insight into their hopes, concerns, and perspectives regarding VMT fees. The results of these interviews are summarized in Chapter 4.

8 Chapters 5 and 6 synthesize information gleaned in the earlier research to identify the salient factors in assessing VMT-fee systems and the key functional and technical components of such systems. The evaluation framework presented in Chapter 5 considers the metering capabilities of alternate technical configurations along with other issues of interest such as the cost of infrastructure and ongoing operations, technical risk, administrative complexity, ease of enforcement, burden on road users, and privacy concerns. Chapter 6 describes the three crucial components required of any VMT-fee system—metering mileage, assessing and collecting fees owed, and enforcement—and enumerate the available technologies to support these functional requirements. The chapter also considers potential public and private roles in supporting different elements of a VMT fee system. Building from the individual VMT system components, Chapter 7 presents nine integrated metering configurations that might support a national system of VMT fees in the near term and briefly considers their relative strengths and limitations. The goal is to identify the subset of options that appear to offer the greatest promise for instituting general-purpose VMT fees by 2015. Three candidates emerge from this analysis – one that involves estimating mileage based on fuel consumption and two that would require more sophisticated in-vehicle equipment. Chapter 8 provides further analysis of these three candidates, identifying (in greater detail) strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, and key design decisions. Chapter 8 also considers the possibility of near-term implementation of weight-distance truck tolls via in-vehicle GPS equipment. Finally, Chapter 9 outlines planning steps and strategies on the path to implementation, while Chapter 10 discusses specific investments in the upcoming transportation reauthorization that could prepare the country for a transition to VMT fees beginning in 2015. The three appendices at the end of the report provide brief descriptions of the existing road pricing programs and development efforts discussed in Chapter 3 (Appendix A), a list of state interviews conducted and the questionnaire used to conduct them, as discussed in Chapter 4 (Appendix B), and summary observations from the expert workshop conducted in Task 6 of the work plan (Appendix C).