prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: This report provides an overview of the FY2019 budget request and appropriations for the International Trade Administration (ITA), the U S  International Trade Commission (USITC), and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)  These three trade-related agencies are funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations  This report also provides a review of these trade agencies' programs  When comparing the Administration's FY2019 request with FY2018 funding, one may want to consider that the Administration formulated its FY2019 budget request before full-year appropriations for FY2018 were enacted  In this report, FY2018 funding levels reflect the amounts appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P L  115-141 ), enacted on March 23, 2018  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, provided $482 0 million in direct funding for ITA, $93 7 million for USTIC, and a total of $72 6 million for USTR for FY2018  The FY2018 appropriation for the three CJS trade-related agencies totaled $648 3 million  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, provided $484 0 million in direct appropriations for ITA, $95 0 million in funding for USITC, and a total of $68 0 million for USTR  The FY2019 appropriations for three CJS trade-related agencies totaled $647 0 million, a 0 2% decrease from FY2018 appropriations  See the Appendix for enacted budget authority for the trade-related agencies for FY2009-FY2019  The President submitted his FY2019 budget request to Congress on February 12, 2018  In it, the Administration requested a total of $590 8 million for the three CJS trade-related agencies (see Table 1 )  This request represented an 8 9% decrease in funding from the FY2018 appropriated amount  The request included reduced funding for all three trade agencies: $440 1 million in direct funding for ITA (an 8 7% decrease from the FY2018 appropriation), $87 6 million for USITC (a 6 5% decrease), and $63 0 million for USTR (a 13 2% decrease)  Despite the proposed overall decrease in funding for CJS trade-related agencies, the Administration proposed increasing some trade enforcement activities within ITA and USTR  For ITA, the Administration proposed increasing trade enforcement activities while reducing funding for certain export promotion activities  For USTR, the Administration requested funds to increase staffing; however, the request did not include a request for funding to be drawn from the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund  (For a description of the " Trade Enforcement Trust Fund ," see section below ) The President's budget did not provide a rationale for requesting a decrease in funding for USITC  A more detailed overview of these agencies' FY2019 budget requests is provided below  The House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported their CJS appropriation bills in the spring of 2018  Both committees largely declined the budget cuts requested by the Administration for these three trade agencies  (See Table 1  ) The House Committee on Appropriations reported H R  5952 on May 17, 2018  The House committee bill included a total of $647 6 million for the three trade-related agencies, which was $56 8 million more (9 6%) than the Administration's request and $0 7 million less (-0 1%) than the FY2018-enacted amount  The House committee recommended $480 0 million in direct funding for ITA, $95 0 million for USTIC, and a total of $72 6 million for USTR  The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S  3072 on June 14, 2018  The Senate bill included a total of $655 6 million for the three agencies, which was $64 8 million (11 0%) more than the Administration's request and $7 3 million (1 1%) more than the FY2018-enacted appropriation  The Senate committee recommended $488 0 million in direct funding for ITA, $95 0 million for USITC, and a total of $72 6 million for USTR  Through February 15, 2019, the CJS trade-related agencies operated under continuing resolutions (CR)—with the exception of a three-week lapse in funding when agencies halted most operations  Congress passed final FY2019 appropriations in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), which was signed into law on February 15, 2019  The act included a total of $647 0 million in funding for the three trade-related agencies—a 0 2% decrease from FY2018 appropriations  For FY2019, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, included $484 0 million in direct appropriations for ITA (a 0 4% increase from the FY2018 appropriation), $95 0 million in funding for USITC (a 1 4% increase), and a total of $68 0 million for USTR (a 0 2% decrease)  Within the Department of Commerce, ITA's mission is to improve U S  prosperity by strengthening the competitiveness of U S  industry, promoting trade and investment, and ensuring compliance with trade laws and agreements  ITA provides export promotion services; works to enforce and ensure compliance with trade laws and agreements; administers trade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing duties; and provides analytical support for ongoing trade negotiations  ITA went through a major organizational change in October 2013 in which it consolidated four organizational units into three more functionally aligned units: (1) Global Markets; (2) Industry and Analysis; and (3) Enforcement and Compliance  ITA also has a fourth organizational unit, the Executive and Administrative Directorate, which is responsible for providing policy leadership, information technology support, and administration services for all of ITA  ( Table A-1 shows budget amounts for ITA by unit between FY2009 and FY2019 ) For FY2019, the Administration requested $440 1 million for ITA in direct funding, with an additional $11 0 million to be collected in user fees, for a total of $451 1 million in authorized spending  The request for direct funding represents a $41 9 million decrease (-8 7%) from the FY2018-enacted amount ($482 0 million)  According to ITA's budget justification, the Administration proposed increasing ITA's enforcement and compliance efforts in FY2019, while deemphasizing other initiatives, such as export promotion  The Administration specifically proposed closing some domestic and international offices of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS)  The House committee-reported H R  5952 proposed $480 0 million for ITA in direct funding, with an additional $11 0 million to be collected from user fees, for a total of $491 0 million in authorized spending  The amount in direct funding proposed by the House Committee on Appropriations was $39 9 million (9 1%) more than the Administration's request and $2 0 million less (-0 4%) than the FY2018-enacted amount  The Senate committee-reported S  3072 included $488 0 million in direct funding for ITA, with an additional $11 0 million in user fees, for a total of $499 0 million in authorized spending  The amount in direct funding proposed by the Senate Committee on Appropriations was $47 9 million (10 9%) more than the Administration's request and $6 0 million (1 2%) more than the FY2018-enacted amount  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ) provided $484 0 million in direct appropriations for ITA, with an additional $11 0 million to be collected in user fees, for a total of $495 0 in authorized spending  The act provided $2 million more (0 4%) in direct appropriations for ITA than the FY2018-enacted amount and $43 9 million more (10 0%) than the Administration's request  ITA's Global Markets (GM) unit is a combination of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) unit, a program that provides export promotion services to U S  businesses, and SelectUSA, a program that works to attract foreign investment into the United States  Through US&FCS, GM promotes U S  exports by helping U S  exporters research foreign markets and identify opportunities abroad  GM's country and regional experts―in domestic and overseas offices—help to advise U S  companies on market access, local standards, and regulations  The unit also helps to make connections through business-to-business trade shows, fairs, and missions  GM is designed to advance U S  commercial interests by engaging with foreign governments and U S  businesses, identifying and resolving market barriers, and leading efforts that advocate for U S  firms with foreign governments  Through its SelectUSA program, the GM unit also promotes the United States as a destination for foreign investment  (For more on SelectUSA, see section below, " SelectUSA Program  ") For FY2019, the Administration proposed reducing funding for the Global Markets unit  The Administration requested $276 5 million for Global Markets in direct funding, a 13 4% decrease from the FY2018-enacted appropriation  In its FY2019 budget submission, ITA proposed "rescaling export promotion" activities in the GM unit by reducing staff and its domestic and overseas offices, with a total reduction of 133 positions  The budget submission did not indicate how many or which domestic and overseas offices it was proposing to close  The House and Senate Appropriation Committees did not adopt the proposed cuts  The House Appropriations Committee recommended $319 0 million for the Global Markets unit for FY2019  This was $42 5 million (15 4%) more than the Administration's request  According to the committee report, "the recommendation does not adopt the proposal to reduce U S  and Foreign Commercial Service staff or close overseas offices or U S  Export Assistance Centers " The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not provide an exact funding amount, but recommended that ITA "fund US&FCS, and its core mission of export promotion, at the highest possible level in fiscal year 2019, and at no less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2018 " Like the House committee, the Senate committee did not adopt the Administration's proposal to close offices  The Senate committee report specifically noted, "No offices shall be closed in fiscal year 2019 unless the Committee approves a reprogramming request to close such office or offices  Additionally, the Committee will not approve requests to close any domestic offices, called U S  Export Assistance Centers, if such Center is the only one located in a given State " According to the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), the final agreement for FY2019 appropriations included "no less than $320 million" in funding for Global Markets and required ITA to report quarterly to the Committees on staffing levels within the US&FCS  ITA's Industry and Analysis unit brings together ITA's industry, trade, and economic experts to advance the competitiveness of U S  industries through the development and execution of international trade and investment policies, export promotion strategies, and investment promotion  It develops economic and international policy analysis to improve market access for U S  businesses, and designs and implements trade and investment promotion programs  The unit serves as the primary liaison between U S  industries and the federal government on trade and investment promotion  It administers programs that support small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the Market Development Cooperator Program  For FY2019, the Administration requested $52 3 million for Industry and Analysis  The request is $3 4 million less than the FY2018 funding level  The Administration proposed refocusing some of the unit's priorities away from export promotion and toward trade enforcement  Specifically, the Administration proposed reducing activities related to trade missions, the International Buyer Program, and certified trade fairs, and eliminating Market Development Cooperator Program grants  The House committee proposed $52 0 million for Industry and Analysis  This represented $0 3 million less (-0 5%) than the Administration's request  The Senate committee-reported bill did not include a specific recommendation for Industry and Analysis  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P
Report 2:  In addition, HHS has data that could be useful for tracking progress in these areas (see table 1)  However, HHS has not adopted specific performance measures with targets specifying the magnitude of the increases HHS hopes to achieve through its efforts to expand access to MAT, and by when  For example, HHS has not established a long-term target specifying the percentage increase in the number of prescriptions for buprenorphine HHS would like to achieve, which would help to show whether efforts by HHS and others are resulting in sufficient progress in increasing prescriptions for this MAT medication  HHS has also not chosen a specific method of measuring treatment capacity or established targets associated with it, which would help to show whether a sufficient number of providers are becoming available to evaluate and treat patients who may benefit from MAT  Without specifying these performance measures and associated targets, HHS will not have an effective means to determine whether its efforts are helping to expand access to MAT  The lack of such performance measures with associated targets is inconsistent with federal internal control standards that specify that management should define objectives and evaluate results  According to these standards, using performance information such as performance measures can help agencies monitor results and determine progress in meeting program goals  In the context of HHS’s efforts to expand access to MAT, establishing appropriate performance measures with associated targets would allow HHS to determine whether its efforts are making sufficient progress or whether they need to be improved  Gauging this progress is particularly important, given the large nationwide MAT treatment gap identified in 2015 between the total number of individuals who could benefit from MAT and the limited number who can access it based on provider availability  This gap was estimated at nearly 1 million people as of 2012, and according to HHS officials and other stakeholders, lack of providers continues to be a challenge  Until HHS establishes performance measures with associated targets for the factors related to access to MAT, the department will be unable to evaluate its progress expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders  In addition, as of August 2017, HHS has not finalized its approach for the planned evaluation activities, including timeframes  ASPE officials said that timeframes for a finalized evaluation approach had not been established because they were still working with RTI to finalize the evaluation approach given the new leadership priorities  When we spoke with the officials, they provided us with a draft evaluation schedule that covered the contract period ending September 2018  As of October 2017, HHS had not provided a finalized evaluation approach or schedule  Federal internal controls call for management to establish and operate monitoring activities and evaluate results  Without an implementation timeframe for the evaluation’s activities, HHS increases the risk that its evaluation of its agencies’ efforts will not be completed as expeditiously as possible, including an evaluation of HHS’s efforts to expand access to MAT  Officials from selected state health departments and behavioral health agencies, private health insurers, and national associations reported using several different efforts to help expand patients’ access to MAT for opioid use disorders  All of the stakeholders we interviewed reported conducting outreach efforts to communicate information about the importance of MAT and how to access it, or providing training to educate providers on prescribing MAT medications  Efforts by states  State health officials we spoke to described several planned or ongoing efforts to expand access to MAT, some of which are supported by federal funding, including federal grant programs  Officials from all five selected states told us that they are offering outreach to and training for providers to help expand access to MAT  For example, several state officials told us that they are promoting training to (1) encourage physicians to obtain authorization (DATA 2000 waivers) to prescribe buprenorphine and (2) encourage physicians with waivers to treat patients up to their patient limit or to request a higher patient limit  According to the stakeholders, all five selected states have implemented or are planning to implement a health care delivery model or approach that will expand access to MAT  Specifically, these models or approaches focus on integrating the use of MAT into primary care settings  For example, health officials from three states described use of a hub-and-spoke model  This model generally involves centralized intake and initial management of patients at a “hub” (e g , an OTP) and then connecting these patients to community providers at “spokes” (e g , primary care clinics) for ongoing care, with ongoing support provided by the hub as needed  Additionally, officials from two states described offering remote MAT-related consultations through telehealth that connects patients in rural areas with addiction specialists  According to a 2017 Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Partnership whitepaper, telehealth expands the reach of the addiction professional workforce and the existing pool of MAT providers, and it supports remote forms of behavioral therapy to make trained professionals more accessible to those in underserved or isolated communities  Officials from three states described focusing their MAT expansion efforts in various settings, such as in the criminal justice setting and emergency room departments  State health officials from four of the five states told us that programs in their states are using peer specialists (individuals who have successfully recovered from substance abuse disorders) in emergency rooms and other settings to engage with addicted patients and refer them to addiction specialists or behavioral health counselors  Officials from the selected states said that some of these and other efforts are funded through federal sources, such as MAT expansion grants awarded by SAMHSA, or with state funds to the extent they are available  Efforts by private health insurers  Officials from private health insurers reported that they are expanding access to MAT through outreach or training for providers and through the following three efforts: Eliminating the need for prior authorization to prescribe MAT medications  Officials from three insurers reported removing prior authorization requirements for MAT medications, thereby making it easier for patients to access needed MAT medications more readily, rather than undergoing a waiting period for approval to receive the medications  Other private health insurers told us that they continue to require prior authorization, intended for safety reasons and to reduce drug misuse, and officials from one insurer told us that they will allow a patient to access a limited amount of MAT medications for a period of 24 to 72 hours while making a determination about the appropriate treatment services for the patient  Modifying health benefit coverage  Officials from one private health insurance plan told us that the company is redesigning the benefit coverage for methadone and has removed member copays  This effort is intended to make MAT medications more affordable and allow members who are not able to use buprenorphine to have an alternative, such as methadone, that is not cost-prohibitive  Incentivizing providers and health insurance plan members to use MAT  Officials from four private health insurance plans described plans to offer incentives to providers or patients to use MAT  For example, officials from three health plans stated that they are offering alternative payment models or paying higher rates to providers that offer MAT, and another private health insurer is offering incentives to its members who are enrolled in behavioral health programs that provide access to MAT  Efforts by national associations  Officials we interviewed from the national associations—including the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the National Governors Association, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials—told us that they are helping to expand access to MAT through outreach and training for their members and by developing tools and resource guides for their members  An official from one association told us that it shares federal grant announcements, including those that are focused on expanding access to MAT, with its members  Officials from another association said it provides training to providers on how to appropriately prescribe MAT medications  In addition, officials from one association told us that they developed an opioid-related road map that identifies examples of strategies—including MAT—that state policymakers can use in their ongoing efforts to address the opioid epidemic  Examples of strategies include reducing the stigma associated with MAT through educating the public and potential providers  Another strategy in the road map is changing payment policies to expand access to MAT services, such as ensuring that Medicaid and other state health programs adequately cover all MAT medications and behavioral interventions and encouraging or requiring commercial health plans to adopt similar policies  HHS funds grant programs and has taken other steps to expand access to MAT, which has been shown to be effective in reducing the prevalence of opioid use disorders and with them, the likelihood of drug overdoses  HHS’s Opioid Initiative began in 2015, and the grants that support it are ongoing, so it is likely too early to determine how effective HHS’s efforts have been in expanding access to MAT and in meeting HHS’s other priorities related to addressing the opioid epidemic  According to HHS, access to MAT can be measured in terms of the number of prescriptions for MAT and by the treatment capacities of OTPs and practitioners who are authorized to prescribe buprenorphine  Our review suggests, however, that HHS may not be ready to perform this evaluation  While HHS told us that it may evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts in the future, the department has not established performance measures with targets that would specify the results that HHS hopes to achieve through its efforts, and by when  Furthermore, HHS has not established timeframes for the activities that will make up its planned evaluation of whether HHS’s efforts have been implemented as intended  Without performance measures with targets and evaluation timeframes, HHS increases the risk that the evaluation will not be completed in a timely manner or that HHS will not know whether its MAT- related efforts are successful or whether new approaches are needed  The evaluation is particularly important, given the hundreds of millions of dollars HHS has invested in its MAT-related grant programs  We are making the following two recommendations to HHS  The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders  (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should establish timeframes in its evaluation approach that specify when its evaluation of efforts to expand access to MAT will be implemented and completed  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review, and HHS provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II  HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  In its written comments, HHS concurred with both of our recommendations  Specifically, for our first recommendation to establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders, HHS stated that developing such measures is appropriate and that the department will continue to work to develop robust performance measures, including measures related to MAT, as part of its overall Opioid Strategy, which includes the department’s most recent efforts to address the opioid epidemic  For our second recommendation to establish timeframes in its evaluation approach that specify when its evaluation of efforts to expand access to MAT will be implemented and completed, HHS agreed that timeframes are important to any evaluation  HHS noted that its evaluation is being conducted under a 2-year contract that is scheduled to end in September 2018  HHS has also provided us with a draft evaluation schedule  We clarified in our report, however, that HHS has not yet provided a finalized approach for the planned evaluation or a finalized schedule establishing timeframes for the activities that will make up the evaluation  Until it finalizes its evaluation approach and establishes related timeframes, HHS increases the risk that it will not complete its planned evaluation by September 2018  We are sending copies of this report to the HHS, and appropriate congressional committees  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or curdae@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III  According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a diversion control plan is a set of documented procedures intended to reduce the possibility that controlled substances will be transferred or used illicitly  Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and practitioners who prescribe buprenorphine at the highest patient level through a Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) waiver are required to have these plans  OTPs are programs that may administer or dispense medication- assisted treatment (MAT) for people diagnosed with an opioid use disorder, including the use of methadone and buprenorphine  In addition, under a DATA 2000 waiver, practitioners may prescribe buprenorphine for patients, up to a 30-, 100-, or 275 patient limit  An OTP must maintain a current diversion control plan that contains specific measures to reduce the possibility of diversion of controlled substances from legitimate treatment use  Per federal guidelines, the goal of the diversion control plan is to reduce the scope and significance of diversion and its impact on communities  The guidelines state that each OTP’s diversion control plan should make every effort to balance diversion control against the therapeutic needs of the individual patient  They also state that diversion control plans should address at least four general areas of concern: program environment, dosing and take-home medication, prevention of multiple program enrollment, and prescription medication misuse  The guidelines include details about each of these areas: Program environment: Diversion in the program environment can be deterred and detected by regular surveillance and the monitoring of areas in and around the program, where opportunities for diversion may exist  A visible human presence at a program’s location gives community members the opportunity to approach staff with concerns and communicates the program’s commitment to assuring a safe environment and a positive impact on the surrounding community  Dosing and take-home medication: In the area of dosing and take- home medication, diversion control encompasses careful control of inventory, attentive patient dosing, and close supervision of take- home medication  Observing a patient take his or her dose and having each of them drink and speak after dosing are fundamental components of diversion control  Take-home dosing should be provided with careful attention to regulatory compliance and the therapeutic benefit and safety these regulations are meant to promote  Prevention of multiple program enrollment: Reasonable measures should be taken to prevent patients from enrolling in treatment provided by more than one clinic or individual practitioner  An OTP, after obtaining patient consent, may contact other OTPs within a reasonable geographic distance (100 miles) to verify that a patient is not enrolled in another OTP  Misuse of prescription medication: The misuse of prescription medication has become an area of great concern nationally and impacts diversion control planning at OTPs  All OTP physicians and other healthcare providers, as permitted, should register to use their respective state’s prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) and query it for each newly admitted patient prior to initiating dosing  The PDMP should be checked periodically (for example, quarterly) through the course of each individual’s treatment and, in particular, before ordering take-home doses as well as at other important clinical decision points  SAMHSA’s best-practice guidelines for using buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorders include multiple references to diversion, including monitoring for diversion, storage of this medication to minimize diversion, and use of formulations that may be less likely to be diverted  Specifically, the best practices state that, when possible, practitioners should use the combination buprenorphine/naloxone product, which increases safety and decreases the likelihood of diversion and misuse  Further, physicians who request and receive a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat up to 275 patients outside of an OTP are required to have a diversion control plan  According to an HHS official, as of July 13, 2017, roughly 3,330 of the over 39,000 practitioners with a waiver had a 275-patient limit waiver  The majority of these practitioners, just over 27,000, have a 30-patient limit  According to SAMHSA guidance, the diversion plan should contain specific measures to reduce the possibility of diversion of buprenorphine from legitimate treatment use and should assign specific responsibilities of the medical and administrative staff of the practice setting for carrying out these measures  Further, the guidance states that the plan should address how: the environment at the practice setting can prevent onsite diversion; to prevent diversion with regard to dosing and take-home medication; and to prevent patients from receiving a prescription from more than one practitioner and later diverting some of the prescribed medication  Elizabeth H  Curda, Director, (202) 512-7114 or curdae@gao gov  In addition to the contact name above, Will Simerl, Assistant Director; Natalie Herzog, Analyst-in-Charge; La Sherri Bush; and Emily Wilson made key contributions to this report  Also contributing were Muriel Brown, Krister Friday, Sandra George, and Christina Ritchie 

ground_truth: Crashes at highway-rail grade crossings are one of the leading causes of railroad-related deaths. According to FRA data, in 2017, there were more than 2,100 crashes resulting in 273 fatalities. Since 2009 crashes have occurred at a fairly constant rate. The federal government provides states funding to improve grade-crossing safety through FHWA's Section 130 Program. The persistence of crashes and deaths raises questions about the effectiveness of the federal grade-crossing-safety program. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to improve grade-crossing safety. This report examines: (1) the focus of FRA's grade-crossing-safety research, (2) how states select and implement grade-crossing projects and what data are available from FRA to inform their decisions, and (3) the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects and the extent to which FHWA assesses the program's effectiveness. GAO analyzed FRA data; reviewed FRA's, FHWA's, and states' documents; reviewed a study of states' selection of projects; and interviewed FRA and FHWA headquarters and field staff, and officials from a non-generalizable sample of eight states, selected to include a mix in the number of grade crossings and crashes, and geographic diversity. Research sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has identified driver behavior as the main cause of highway-rail grade crossing crashes and that factors such as train and traffic volume can contribute to the risk of a crash. (See figure.) Over 70 percent of fatal crashes in 2017 occurred at grade crossings with gates. To meet the requirements of the federal grade-crossing program, states are responsible for selecting and ensuring the implementation of grade-crossing improvement projects. Most state DOT officials and other relevant transportation officials use local knowledge of grade crossings to supplement the results of models that rank grade crossings based on the risk of an accident. These states generally consider the same primary risk factors, such as vehicle and train traffic. FRA is taking steps to improve the data used in its model to help states assess risk factors at grade crossings. For example, FRA's grade-crossing inspectors will review and identify issues with railroad- and state-reported inventory data. FRA is currently developing guidelines, which it plans to finalize by the end of 2018, to implement these inspections as it has for other types of FRA inspections. Officials we spoke with in eight states reported challenges in pursuing certain types of projects that could further enhance safety, in part because of federal requirements. While safety has improved, many crashes occur at grade crossings with gates, and officials said there could be additional ways to focus program requirements to continue improving safety. States' and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) reporting focuses on the program's funding and activity, such as the number and types of projects, yet the low number of crashes makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of projects in reducing crashes and fatalities. FHWA reports the program has been effective in reducing fatalities by about 74 percent since 1975. However, since 2009, annually there have been about 250 fatalities—almost one percent of total highway fatalities. FRA expects future crashes to grow, in part, due to the anticipated increase in rail and highway traffic. An evaluation of the program should consider whether its funding and other requirements allow states to adequately address ongoing safety issues. FHWA officials said they are not required to perform such evaluations. GAO has previously reported on the importance of program evaluations to determine the extent to which a program is meeting its objectives. An evaluation of the program could lead FHWA to identify changes that could allow states to more strategically address problem areas. GAO recommends that FHWA evaluate the program's requirements to determine if they allow states the flexibility to address ongoing safety issues. The Department of Transportation concurred with GAO's recommendation.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Grade-crossing safety has improved significantly since 1975, but since 2009, the number of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings has plateaued (see fig  1)  The yearly number of grade-crossing crashes declined from 12,126 in 1975 to 2,117 in 2017  In that time frame, fatalities dropped from 917 to 273  The most significant reductions in grade-crossing crashes and fatalities were achieved from 1975 to 1985, when states closed or improved the most dangerous crossings  Grade- crossing safety continued to improve until the mid-2000s, though at a slower rate  Since 2009, the number of grade-crossing crashes and fatalities remains at around 2,100 crashes and 250 fatalities a year  These fatalities typically make up less than one percent of all highway- related fatalities  The decrease in crashes and fatalities occurred as the volume of train and highway traffic generally increased over the years  FRA expects the traffic volumes to continue to increase and has expressed concern that grade-crossing crashes and fatalities may also increase  As a set-aside portion of FHWA’s much larger Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Section 130 Program provides funds to state DOTs for the elimination of hazards at highway-rail grade crossings  States determine what improvements need to be made at grade crossings  FHWA has oversight responsibilities regarding the use of federal funds as part of its administration of federal-aid highway programs and funding, including HSIP funds  FHWA uses a statutory formula to distribute to states Section 130 Program funds, which averaged $235 million per year during the last 10 years (fiscal years 2009 through 2018)  Section 130 Program projects are funded at a 90 percent federal share, with the state or the roadway authority funding the remaining 10 percent  States have 4 years to obligate their program funds before they expire, meaning that in any given fiscal year, states can obligate funds appropriated in that year as well as any unobligated funds from the previous 3 fiscal years  In addition, states may choose to combine funds from multiple years to fund relatively expensive projects  The Section 130 Program’s requirements direct states to establish an implementation schedule for grade-crossing-safety improvement projects that, at a minimum, include warning signs for all public grade crossings  Grade crossings are generally categorized as “active” or “passive” depending on the type of traffic control devices that are present  As of July 2018, according to FRA’s National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, there were approximately 68,000 public grade crossings with electronic, or active, traffic control devices in the United States  Another approximately 58,000 public grade crossings have passive traffic-control devices, which include signs and supplementary pavement markings  The requirements also specify that at least 50 percent of Section 130 Program funding must be dedicated to the installation of protective devices at grade crossings, including traffic control devices  States can use remaining program funds for any hazard elimination project  States may also use program funds to improve warning signs and pavement markings or to improve the way the roadway aligns with the tracks (e g , to ensure low-clearance vehicles do not get stuck on the tracks)  In addition, states can use up to 2 percent of the funds to improve their grade-crossing inventories and to collect and analyze data  See figure 2 for examples of the types of projects eligible for Section 130 Program funds and graphical depictions of grade crossings before and after safety improvements have been made  FHWA and FRA are the primary agencies responsible for safety at grade crossings, and they both play key—yet distinct—roles  FHWA oversees the Section 130 Program and monitors states’ uses of program funds through 52 division offices located in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and through headquarters staff in Washington, D C  In addition, FHWA’s division staff reviews states’ processes for prioritizing and selecting grade-crossing-safety improvement projects  FHWA does not evaluate the appropriateness of individual grade-crossing projects, but instead helps states determine that projects meet program eligibility requirements  Division staff assists in the implementation of Section 130 Program state-administered projects, and they may participate in state- DOT-led, on-site reviews of grade crossings under consideration for Section 130 Program projects  FHWA headquarters staff is responsible for FHWA-wide initiatives, such as working with stakeholders to establish standards for traffic control devices and systems at grade crossings and for engineering oversight of state-administered safety improvement projects  FRA provides safety oversight of both freight and passenger railroads by: collecting and analyzing data; issuing and enforcing numerous safety regulations, including on grade-crossings’ warning systems; conducting focused inspections, audits, and accident providing technical assistance to railroads and other stakeholders  Specifically, FRA oversees rail safety through eight regional offices and through headquarters staff in Washington, D C  Regional staff monitor railroads’ compliance with federal safety regulations through inspections and provide technical assistance and guidance to states  In 2017, FRA created a new discipline for grade-crossing safety and is hiring new grade-crossing inspectors  These inspectors conduct field investigations, identify regulatory defects and violations, recommend civil penalty assessments when appropriate, and may participate in state- DOT-led teams that conduct on-site reviews of grade crossings to evaluate potential safety improvements  According to FRA documentation, FRA’s new inspectors will also work with a variety of stakeholders to institute new types of training, explore new safety concepts and technologies, and assist in the development of new or modified highway-rail grade-crossing-safety regulations, initiatives, and programs  The inspectors will also work with FHWA and other DOT operating administrations in a cooperative effort to improve grade- crossing safety  FRA regional staff also investigates select railroad crashes, including those at grade crossings, to determine root causation and any contributing factors, so that railroads can implement corrective actions  FRA headquarters staff develops analytical tools for states to use to prioritize grade-crossing projects  In addition, headquarters staff manages research and development to support improved railroad safety, including at grade crossings  FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety maintains the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory database and the Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System on grade-crossing crashes  Both states and railroads submit information to FRA’s crossing inventory, which is designed to contain information on every grade crossing in the nation  Railroads submit information such as train speed and volume; states submit information such as highway speed limits and average annual daily traffic  The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 added requirements for both railroads and states to periodically update the inventory; however, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) repealed a provision providing DOT authority to issue implementing regulations that would govern states’ reporting to the inventory  According to FRA officials, while FRA’s regulations do not require states to report the information, FRA encourages them to do so  FRA regulations require railroads to report and update their information in the inventory every 3 years or sooner in some instances, such as if new warning devices are installed or the grade crossing is closed  FRA’s accident system contains details about each grade-crossing accident that has occurred  In addition to submitting immediate reports of fatal grade-crossing crashes, railroads are required to submit accident reports within 30 days after the end of the month in which the accident occurred and describe conditions at the time of the accident (e g , visibility and weather); information on the grade crossing (e g , type of warning device); and information on the driver (e g , gender and age)  In its role overseeing grade-crossing safety, FRA has sponsored a number of research efforts to better understand the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identify potential ways to improve engineering, education, and enforcement efforts  For example, FRA sponsored an in- depth data analysis of grade-crossing crashes to better identify which crossing characteristics increase the risk of an accident  The report, issued in 2017, found that the volumes of train and vehicle traffic at a crossing are the biggest predictors of grade-crossing crashes  Changes in vehicle and train traffic therefore affect the annual number of grade- crossing crashes  For example, as highway traffic decreased in 2008, possibly due to the economic recession and higher gas prices, so too did the number of grade-crossing crashes  As previously noted, FRA expects that the number of grade-crossing crashes will likely grow with anticipated increases in future train and highway traffic  As discussed below, vehicle and train volume are included in the U S  DOT Accident Prediction Model, which some states use to select grade-crossing improvement projects  According to FRA officials, FRA is using the results of this recent in-depth data analysis to, in part, evaluate whether additional risk factors, such as the number of male drivers or trains carrying toxic materials, should be added to the model  FRA has targeted other research into understanding driver behavior at grade crossings, which is the leading cause of crashes  According to FRA’s accident data, in 2017, 71 percent of fatal crashes at public grade crossings occurred at those with gates  In 2004, the DOT Inspector General (IG) reported that 94 percent of grade-crossing crashes from 1994 to 2003 could be attributed to risky driver behavior or poor judgement  State officials we spoke with explained that drivers may become impatient waiting at a grade crossing and decide to go around the gates  Drivers may also line up over the grade crossing in heavy vehicular traffic, and be unable to exit before the gates come down  See figure 3 for examples of risky driver behavior at grade crossings  To better understand driver behavior, FRA sponsored a John A  Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) study that recorded and analyzed drivers’ actions as they approached grade crossings  The researchers found that almost half of drivers were doing another task, such as eating, and over a third did not look in either direction while approaching passive grade crossings  We have previously reported, and many stakeholders we interviewed agreed, that in light of inappropriate driver behavior, technological solutions alone may not fully resolve safety issues at grade crossings  In addition, public-education and law-enforcement efforts can augment the effectiveness of technological solutions  According to FRA officials, they shared information on driver education with DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as NHTSA works more closely with states on driver education manuals  According to DOT officials, NHTSA updates its driver education materials every 2–3 years and plans to consider including grade-crossing-safety materials in the next versions  FRA is also working with states and localities to research and develop new protective devices and other safety measures targeted at improving driver behavior at grade crossings  As most fatal crashes happen at grade crossings already equipped with gates, FRA and state and local agencies are exploring whether additional safety measures can improve safety at those locations  For example, in 2016 and 2017, FRA’s Grade Crossing Task Force worked with the Volpe Center and the City of Orlando to test whether photo enforcement at grade crossings could reduce risky driver behavior  The City of Orlando installed automated photo-enforcement devices at a grade crossing, and instead of issuing fines to drivers who had violated its warning devices, sent drivers a warning notice and educational safety materials  Eight months after the photo-enforcement system was installed, grade crossing violations decreased by 15 percent  While FRA judged these enforcement efforts successful at changing driver behavior, a 2015 FRA whitepaper noted that photo enforcement equipment is costly—on average costing over $300,000 per crossing to install and operate for 2 years—and may not be cost-effective for most grade crossings  FRA found that due to costs and state laws prohibiting photo-enforcement, only two photo- enforcement cameras were currently in operation at grade crossings across the country  States, localities, and FHWA are also exploring whether new types of pavement markings at grade crossings can improve driver behavior  According to DOT officials, FHWA is working with two states to develop new cross-hatch pavement markings for grade crossings that would comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, similar to the “don’t block the box” type pavement markings used in intersections  FHWA also worked with a city to test the use of in-roadway lights to delineate the crossing  (See fig  4)  FRA and state DOTs are also trying to improve pedestrian safety at grade crossings by developing new safety measures  Grade-crossing accidents involving pedestrians are less frequent than those involving automobiles at grade crossings but have a higher fatality rate  While pedestrians were involved in only 9 percent of accidents at public crossings in 2017, almost 40 percent of fatal grade-crossing accidents involved pedestrians  To try to improve pedestrian safety, in 2012 the Volpe Center worked with New Jersey Transit to study whether adding additional pedestrian gate skirts— hanging gates that further block a crossing (see fig  5)—would prevent people from ducking under the gates  The Volpe Center reported that these new gates had mixed success  While incidents of people going under and around the gates decreased, more people chose to cross the tracks in the street rather than at the sidewalk  Finally, FRA is exploring new automated and connected vehicle technologies that could reduce risky driver behavior at grade crossings  FRA, FHWA, and officials from one state we interviewed said they anticipate that such technology will be critical to further improving safety  Specifically, FRA and FHWA are coordinating with DOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office to develop pilot technology that would enable crossing infrastructure or trains to communicate wirelessly with vehicles  Vehicles can use this information to warn the driver that a crash or violation is imminent, or integrate with onboard active safety systems  According to FRA officials, they completed a proof of concept in 2013 and completed and tested a prototype of the technology in 2017  DOT officials said that DOT does not have a time frame for when automakers might begin incorporating such connected vehicle technologies and noted that retrofitting older cars with new equipment will likely make this a long-term effort  FRA shares information on its research in various ways with state DOTs, because states are responsible for deciding which safety measures to install at grade crossings  Specifically, FRA and FHWA jointly hold quarterly webinars with stakeholders, including state DOT officials, and conduct presentations at highway-rail safety workshops  Information on safety measures such as grade-crossing devices, signs, and markings are also included in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook  According to DOT officials, the handbook was developed jointly by FHWA and FRA  The last version of the handbook was updated in 2007 and includes some out of date information  FRA and FHWA officials said they began working on an update in 2017, but missed the July 2018 target completion date  According to FHWA officials, updating the handbook is a complex undertaking that has taken more time than they anticipated due to the extensive collaboration required among stakeholders  FHWA officials said they anticipate completing the update during the spring of 2019  The risk of crashes at public grade crossings within a state factors into states’ selection of over 1,000 new Section 130 Program projects nationally each fiscal year  FHWA requires states to develop a grade crossing program that considers relative risk  FHWA officials said they review the methods that states use to select projects to ensure that risk is considered  According to a 2016 academic study of 50 states, most states use mathematical formulas, or “accident prediction models,” to help assess risk and identify grade crossings for potential projects  More specifically, these accident prediction models use factors such as grade crossing characteristics and accident history to rank grade crossings by risk  DOT provides one such model—the Accident Prediction Model—and some states have developed their own models  The study reported that 19 states used DOT’s model and 20 states used a different model  It also found that the DOT and commonly used state models include some similar grade-crossing characteristics to predict accident risk  For example, the selected models reviewed all considered vehicle- and train- traffic volume, which FRA has found to be the strongest predictors of grade-crossing crashes  FRA makes its Accident Prediction Model available to states online through its Web Accident Prediction System  This system is an online tool that uses FRA’s crossing inventory, crossing collision history, and the DOT Accident Prediction Model to predict accident risk for grade crossings in each state  Only one of the eight states in our review used the system as its primary source for ranking grade-crossing risk  Most of the other states perform their own calculations to rank grade crossings  Officials from two states said that they believe their state-maintained data are more reliable than FRA’s crossing inventory and explained that they go directly to their contacts at railroads to get updated information on factors such as train volume  Accident prediction models are only one source of information states use when selecting Section 130 Program projects  According to the state officials we spoke with, a variety of other considerations can also influence their decisions, including the following: Proximity of projects together along a railroad “corridor” in order to gain efficiencies and reduce construction costs  Requests from local jurisdictions or railroads  These stakeholders may have information on upcoming changes at a grade crossing, such as higher train volume or new housing developments nearby, which would increase risk but would not be reflected yet in the accident prediction model  Availability of local funding to provide the required 10 percent match for Section 130 Program projects, while trying to spread the funds fairly across the state  States may also consider grade crossings that have had close calls in the past, such as where a car narrowly avoided being hit by a train  FRA does not require railroads to report on these close calls, or “near misses;” however, according to state officials, railroads sometimes provide this information to states on an ad-hoc basis  State officials from four of the eight states we spoke with said they considered near misses when selecting Section 130 Program projects  A 2004 Volpe Center report noted that studying close calls was a proactive way to improve safety  According to the report, FRA sponsored a workshop to learn about the benefits of collecting and analyzing close calls  However, stakeholders we interviewed noted challenges formalizing near-miss reporting  For example, Volpe Center officials said these reports are subjective in nature—what one engineer considers a close call, others may not  FRA developed another online tool—GradeDec—to allow states to compare the costs and benefits for various grade-crossing improvement projects  GradeDec uses models to analyze a project’s risk and calculate cost-benefit ratios and net present value for potential projects  FRA provides state DOTs with on-site GradeDec workshops upon request  While FRA officials noted that many state and local governments have registered to use the program, none of the state officials we spoke with identified GradeDec as a tool that they use to conduct cost-benefit analysis  Officials from two state DOTs we spoke with said that cost- benefit analyses could help them better identify and select the most cost- effective crossing safety projects in the future  According to the academic study of 50 states noted above, because of limited funding for grade-crossing improvements, states should consider the life-cycle costs of the projects as well as net present value to help select projects  As discussed later in this report, the small number of crashes at grade crossings can make it challenging to distinguish between different projects in terms of their effectiveness in reducing accidents  Finally, after they have considered risk factors and created a list of potential grade crossings for improvement, state officials, along with relevant stakeholders from railroads and local governments, conduct field reviews of the potential projects  According to state officials, these reviews help identify grade-crossing characteristics that may not be included in the accident prediction models, such as vegetation that would obstruct drivers’ views  In 2008, legislation was enacted mandating reporting by states and railroads to the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory  However, the fact that reporting to the inventory remained voluntary until 2015 has had lingering effects on the completeness of the data in the inventory  In 2015, as mandated by statute, FRA issued regulations requiring railroads to update certain data elements for all grade crossings every 3 years  However, our analysis of FRA’s crossing inventory found that 4 percent of grade crossings were last updated in 2009 or earlier  In addition, because MAP-21 repealed DOT’s authority to issue regulations that would govern state reporting to the inventory, state reporting of grade-crossing data remains voluntary, according to FRA officials, and all state-reported information is not complete  Our analysis of state-reported data in FRA’s crossing inventory found varying levels of completeness  For example, while some state-reported data fields were almost entirely complete, 33 percent of public grade crossings were missing data on posted highway speed  We also found that of the crossings for which states reported the year when the highway-traffic count was conducted, 64 percent of the highway-traffic counts for public grade crossings, another important risk factor, had not been updated since 2009, or earlier  According to the 2015 final rule, FRA will continue to evaluate whether additional regulations to address state reporting are needed to maintain the crossing inventory’s accuracy  FRA officials told us that improving inventory data will help them better deploy their limited resources, particularly their grade-crossing inspectors, and said that they have taken steps to help improve the data  In 2017, FRA regional officials conducted field reviews to verify the latitude and longitude data for grade crossings in the inventory, data that states are responsible for updating  In addition, FRA expects its grade-crossing inspectors as part of their inspections to review and identify issues with the railroad- and state-reported inventory data  According to FRA officials, FRA has begun to both transition its 19 grade-crossing managers into grade-crossing inspectors and also hire new inspectors, for an eventual total of 24 inspectors and eight regional specialists to supervise their activities  To help ensure railroads’ compliance with crossing inventory regulations, officials said that the inspectors will use spot checks to validate the inventory data by comparing grade-crossing characteristics in the field with the information railroads submitted to the inventory  In addition, FRA has incorporated information on inventory-reporting requirements into the grade-crossing inspectors’ training  Finally, FRA is currently developing guidelines for the grade-crossing inspections similar to those for other FRA safety disciplines  FRA headquarters officials acknowledged that they are still clarifying the details for the inspections that will be included in the compliance manuals that inspectors will use  Specifically, they said they are still determining appropriate inspector workloads and drafting specific guidelines that will need to be integrated into FRA’s regional inspection plans  FRA officials said they are working to develop and make available inventory inspection guidance to the grade-crossing managers and inspectors by December 31, 2018  In the meantime, FRA held training that included information on inventory-reporting requirements  In August 2018, FRA developed guidance for grade-crossing inspections specific to quiet zones in response to a recommendation we made in 2017  It is important that FRA meets its goal to issue similar guidance specific to reviewing the accuracy of the inventory data, as FRA cannot have reasonable assurance that inspections that are already under way are being conducted in such a manner that would allow them to consistently identify data reliability issues at each crossing  About 75 percent of all Section 130 Program projects states implemented in fiscal year 2016 involved installing or updating active grade-crossing equipment, including warning lights and protective gates (see fig  6)  The prevalence of this type of project is in part due to the Section 130 Program requirement that states spend at least 50 percent of funds on protective devices  Other than eliminating a grade crossing, adding protective devices has long been considered the most effective way of reducing the risk of a crash  Officials from six of eight state DOTs we interviewed told us that the numbers and types of grade-crossing projects they implement are dependent on the amount of Section 130 Program funding they receive and the cost of the projects  As previously described, funds are set aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program and distributed to states by a statutory formula that includes factors such as the number of grade crossings in each state  Officials from six of the eight state DOTs we spoke to agreed that the set-aside nature of the program was crucial in allowing them to implement projects, many of which they said would not have been possible without Section 130 Program funds  For example, many said the formula funding ensures that grade-crossing projects are completed along with highway safety projects, particularly given the fact that fatalities resulting from grade-crossing crashes account for so few when compared to highway deaths  Overall, fatalities resulting from grade-crossing crashes account for less than 1 percent of all highway- related fatalities  In fiscal year 2018, the funds distributed ranged from a low of approximately $1 2 million for eight states and Washington, D C , to over $16 million for California and over $19 million for Texas  The number of grade crossings in the eight states and Washington, D C  ranged from 5 to 380, while California had almost 6,000 and Texas had over 9,000  Project implementation costs varied by project type and ranged widely depending on project scope  Based on 2016 DOT data, some typical project costs ranged as follows: adding signs to passive grade crossings—$500 to $1,500; adding flashing lights and two gates to passive grade crossings— $150,000 to $300,000; adding four gates to grade crossings with flashing lights—$250,000 - closing a grade crossing—$25,000 to $100,000; and separating a grade crossing from traffic (Grade Separation)—$5 million to $40 million  State officials we spoke with cited several challenges in pursuing certain types of controversial, innovative, and expensive projects that could help them address the evolving nature of risk at grade crossings and difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of their projects  First, most state DOT officials said that the cost of grade-separation projects and, at times, the controversy of eliminating grade crossings through closure reduces the number of these projects, while acknowledging that they are the most effective ways to improve safety  These types of projects made up only 3 percent of Section 130 Program projects in fiscal year 2016 (see fig  6)  Grade-separation projects are often more expensive than the annual Section 130 Program funding available to states  In 2018, only eight states received annual Section 130 Program funding sufficient to fund a $7-million grade-separation project  As discussed previously, to fund relatively expensive projects, states may choose to combine funds from multiple years  Also, states and railroads may make incentive payments to localities for the permanent closure of a grade crossing  In addition to the cost, most state DOT officials reported challenges obtaining local support for closing grade crossings  They said closures may inconvenience residents who use the road and force emergency responders to take longer routes, potentially slowing response times  Grade-separation projects address these safety concerns and may be more agreeable to residents, but they are substantially more expensive  While up to $7,500 in Section 130 Program funding can be used to help incentivize communities to close grade crossings, officials from some of our selected state DOTs said this amount is generally not enough to persuade local officials to support the closing  Second, officials from many state DOTs we interviewed also reported that the requirements of the Section 130 Program create challenges for them in implementing what they considered to be innovative projects  For example, the program requirement that 50 percent of funds be used on protective devices, combined with what one researcher described to us as the tendency by states to implement “known” projects—i e , protective devices—may impede states’ selection of new, more innovative safety projects  Officials we interviewed from many state DOTs described challenges related to the program’s requirements  They noted that they are prevented from using Section 130 Program funds for new types of safety technologies not yet incorporated into FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  As noted previously in this report, outside the Section 130 Program FHWA is working with states and localities to explore whether new types of pavement markings at grade crossings, not in the manual, can improve driver behavior  One state DOT official we interviewed suggested changes to allow states to fund one grade- crossing pilot project per year or to use a set percentage of program funds to finance a pilot project that could help them explore promising but as yet unproven technologies  Third, state DOT officials from four of the eight selected states also said it can be difficult to find funding for the required 10 percent state match  As previously mentioned, while certain rail-safety projects are eligible for up to 100 percent federal funding, Section 130 Program projects are funded at a 90 percent federal share  According to DOT documentation we reviewed, only some states have a dedicated source for such a match, and state DOT officials from one of our selected states said their state cannot use state funds for the 10 percent match  Some state DOT officials said this situation can drive project selection  For example, they sometimes chose projects based on which localities or railroads were willing to provide matching funds or offer cost savings  Finally, many state officials cited challenges in measuring the effectiveness of grade crossing projects in reducing crashes or the risk of crashes  In particular, state officials we spoke to said it can be difficult to use before-and-after crash statistics as a measure of effectiveness because of the low number and random nature of crashes  Also, as FRA research has shown and as FHWA and FRA have noted, reporting on before-and-after grade-crossing accident statistics can be misleading, given the infrequency of crashes and crashes that are not the result of grade crossing conditions  States’ required Section 130 Program annual progress reports to the Secretary of DOT call for states to report on the effectiveness of the improvements they made  FHWA reporting guidance suggests they define effectiveness as the reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries after grade-crossing projects were implemented, consistent with statutory requirements  In addition, FHWA guidance states that consideration should be given to quantifying effectiveness in the context of fatalities and serious injuries  However, states often report no differences in crashes after specific projects were implemented, and there have been instances where states reported a slight increase in crashes  Such an increase does not necessarily mean that the project was not effective in reducing the overall risk of a crash  Also, not all projects are implemented at grade crossings where there has been a crash  Among other information, states also typically report information on funding and data on the numbers and types of projects implemented  In addition, the extent to which states report projects’ effectiveness varies greatly  Given states’ responsibility for implementing the Section 130 Program and the differences in the amounts of funding they receive, FHWA officials said states should determine and report on the appropriate effectiveness metrics for their programs  According to FHWA officials, during the 2017 reporting year, a few states requested examples of what to include when reporting effectiveness, and FHWA responded with examples of various methods they could use, such as a benefit-cost ratio or the percentage decrease in fatalities, serious injuries, and crashes  Regardless of the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of specific projects, most state DOT officials we interviewed stressed the importance of the Section 130 Program in funding grade-crossing projects  FHWA’s biennial report to Congress is intended to provide information to Congress on the progress being made by the states in implementing projects to improve safety and, in addition, make recommendations for future implementation of the program  FHWA reviews states’ annual Section 130 Program reports and uses them to formulate the report to Congress every 2 years  FHWA’s 2018 report highlights that the Section 130 Program has seen great success since 1975, with a decrease of approximately 74 percent in fatalities at the same time that there was an increase in vehicle and train traffic  The report described the latest available 10-year trend, from 2007 to 2016, as showing a 31 percent decrease in fatalities  Fatalities have also decreased when adjusted for train traffic  However, FHWA officials acknowledged in interviews with us that crashes and fatalities have remained constant since about 2009, with more recent data showing a slight increase in fatalities over the last 2 to 3 years, data that are consistent with the increases in overall roadway fatalities  The officials said increased train- and vehicle-traffic volumes could be contributing to that increase, in addition to other factors, such as more bicycle riders and pedestrians using grade crossings  As described earlier, states have generally already used Section 130 Program funding to address safety at the riskiest grade crossings by adding protective measures, typically lights and gates  Yet crashes continue to occur at these improved grade crossings  Given these trends and the challenges discussed earlier related to the requirements of the Section 130 Program, it is not clear whether the program remains effective in continuing to reduce the risk of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings  As required, FHWA’s biennial report includes a section on “recommendations for future implementation” of the Section 130 Program  As part of this, FHWA reports on challenges and actions being taken to address them  FHWA’s 2018 report identified one of the same challenges we heard about from state DOT officials related to the inability or unwillingness of local agencies to provide matching funds and the relatively low amount of funding designed to incentivize localities to close crossings  FHWA reported on its efforts to address these challenges, including by providing guidance, resources, and supportive training to states and local agencies and serving as a clearinghouse for innovative methods of supporting projects  However, with the exception of the funding challenge, FHWA’s most recent report does not include the other challenges state officials identified to us related to the requirements of the Section 130 Program discussed above  These include program funding requirements that may impede innovative approaches and the difficulties of using before-and-after crash statistics to measure effectiveness  Many state DOT officials we spoke with said there may be an opportunity to more broadly assess the Section 130 Program at the national level  It could be more informative to comprehensively assess more detailed crash trends, such as those that look forward over multiple years across the more than 1,700 crashes nationwide, rather than on the approximately 35 that occur on average within a state, and identify strategies to address those trends  Doing so could help FHWA learn more about why crashes are continuing and what types of projects may be effective  There could be ways to evaluate the program in a more comprehensive way; many state DOT officials we interviewed told us such a comprehensive evaluation could help improve program effectiveness in a number of ways, including by enabling the program to better keep up with the rapid pace of technological change and re- examining eligibility requirements that limit the flexibility of states to consider other types of projects beyond engineering  Also, most state DOT officials we interviewed agreed that education and enforcement efforts are crucial to further improving safety, as did 8 out of 10 other stakeholders we spoke to, as well as officials from Volpe Center and NTSB  However, according to FHWA officials, those project types are not allowed under the Section 130 Program’s requirements  The officials said FHWA has partnered with FRA and NHTSA on research efforts, such as driver-behavior studies, to inform grade-crossing safety issues  However, the officials said that FHWA has not conducted a program evaluation of the Section 130 Program to consider whether the program’s funding and other requirements allow states to adequately address ongoing safety issues such as driver behavior  FHWA officials said that there is no federal requirement for them to conduct such a program evaluation  We have previously reported that an important component of effective program management is through program performance assessment, which helps establish a program’s effectiveness—the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended and the extent to which a program achieves what the agency proposes to accomplish  This type of evaluative information helps the executive branch and congressional committees make decisions about the programs they oversee  Assessing program performance includes conducting program evaluations, which are individual systematic studies that answer specific questions about how well a program is meeting its objectives  In addition, federal internal-control standards state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes in a program’s environment that could pose new risks  FHWA officials said the fact that crashes and fatalities have held steady while the volume of train and vehicle traffic has increased is an indication that grade-crossing safety has continued to improve  However, specific to fatalities per million train-miles, FHWA’s 2018 biennial report shows this rate to be fairly constant since 2009  As noted previously, FRA expects train and traffic volumes to continue to increase and has expressed concern that grade-crossing crashes and fatalities may also increase  Without conducting a program evaluation, FHWA cannot ensure that the Section 130 Program is achieving one of the national goals of the federal- aid highway program, to reduce fatalities and injuries  In addition, It is difficult to see how FHWA, in its biennial reports to Congress, could make informed recommendations for future program implementation without conducting a program evaluation to assess, among other things, whether program requirements first established some four decades ago continue to reduce fatalities and injuries  We note that as part of a program evaluation, some changes that FHWA, working with FRA, identifies as potentially having merit to improve the program’s effectiveness could require a statutory change  The continued number of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings with devices intended to warn of a train’s presence calls into question whether the Section 130 Program is structured to help states continue making progress toward the national goal to reduce fatalities and injuries  An evaluation of the program’s requirements could help determine whether Congress should consider better ways to focus federal funds to address the key factor in crashes—risky driver behavior  An FHWA program evaluation could also help determine whether, for example, states could more strategically target emerging safety problems if changes were made to the types of projects eligible for funding under the Section 130 Program  FRA’s new grade-crossing inspectors are meant to increase the effectiveness of FRA’s rail-safety oversight activities, and accordingly, these FRA inspectors, along with FRA researchers, may be well positioned to help FHWA evaluate potential changes to improve the effectiveness of the Section 130 Program  The Administrator of FHWA, working with FRA, should evaluate the Section 130 Program’s requirements to determine whether they allow states sufficient flexibility to adequately address current and emerging grade-crossing safety issues  As part of this evaluation, FHWA should determine whether statutory changes to the program are necessary to improve its effectiveness  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment  In written comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOT concurred with our recommendation  DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  This report examines (1) what has been the focus of Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) grade-crossing-safety research, (2) how states select and implement grade-crossing projects and what railroad- and state-reported data are available from FRA to inform states’ decisions, and (3) the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects and the extent to which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assesses the program’s effectiveness  The scope of this work focused on the nation’s more than 128,000 public grade crossings  We did not include private grade crossings, as states can only use Railway- Highway Crossings Program (commonly referred to as the Section 130 Program) funds to improve safety at public grade crossings  While FRA provides safety grants to address rail issues, including for grade-crossing projects, we focused our work on the Section 130 Program because it is the primary source of federal funding directed at grade-crossing-safety improvement  For each objective we reviewed: pertinent statutes and FHWA and FRA regulations and documents; interviewed FHWA and FRA program officials in headquarters; and conducted in-depth interviews with a non- generalizable sample of organizations that included officials from 4 freight and passenger railroads, 12 state agencies from 8 states, 6 FRA regional offices, and 8 FHWA state division offices  We also spoke with representatives from relevant associations and officials from NTSB and Volpe Center  We selected these organizations based on our initial background research, prior work, and input from other stakeholders, among other things  See the paragraph below for additional selection details and table 5 for a complete list of organizations we spoke with  We selected eight states as part of our non-generalizable sample for interviews  These states included Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania  The states were selected to include a mix of state experiences based on a variety of factors, including the number of grade crossings and crashes at those crossings, and the amount of Section 130 Program funding they received  Specifically, we selected four states from those in the top 25 percent of all states in terms of their number of grade crossings and the amount of Section 130 Program funds they received  We selected the other four states to include a mix of these factors  We also considered geographical diversity and recommendations from FRA and FHWA officials  Within these eight states, we conducted in-depth interviews with FHWA division staff, FRA regional staff, and state officials  A variety of state agencies administer the Section 130 Program within their state; the state officials we spoke with from our eight selected states worked for agencies such as state departments of transportation, corporation commissions, and public utility commissions  We also spoke with a non-generalizable sample of four railroads: Amtrak, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Sierra Northern  We selected railroads based on a variety of factors including geographic location and stakeholder recommendations  We also conducted additional work related to each of the objectives  To describe the focus of FRA’s grade-crossing-safety research, we examined FRA research aimed at understanding the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identifying potential improvements and described FRA efforts to test new approaches that could improve safety  We did not assess the quality of FRA’s research, as that was beyond the scope of this engagement  Instead, we described the nature of the research  We also spoke with FRA research and development staff, Volpe researchers, and state partners about this work  To describe how states select and implement grade-crossing projects, and what FRA data are available to inform their decisions, we reviewed an academic study that included a literature review and interviews with state officials to describe how states select Section 130 Program projects  We spoke with the researcher and determined the study to be reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives  We also spoke with officials from our eight selected states, FHWA division staff, and FRA regional staff, and reviewed the states’ 2017 Section 130 Program reports  As part of this objective, we also assessed the reliability of data reported for all railroads in FRA’s National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory data as of August 31, 2018  For public grade crossings that were not closed, we examined a selection of fields within the database to identify the frequency of missing data (see table 1), data anomalies (see table 2), relational errors, where two related data fields had values that were incompatible (see table 3), and when the data was last updated (see table 4)  Specifically, we conducted the following electronic tests on the crossing inventory data to determine if they were within reasonable ranges, were internally consistent, and appeared complete: Before conducting our analysis, we filtered the inventory data to only include open, public, at-grade crossings  To understand FRA’s efforts to improve its crossing inventory data, we interviewed FRA regional and headquarters staff and reviewed job descriptions for FRA’s new grade- crossing inspectors  Finally, to determine the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing grade-crossing safety projects and the extent to which FHWA assesses the program’s effectiveness, we reviewed program requirements and state project data and other components from FHWA’s 2016 and 2018 Section 130 Program biennial reports to Congress  We also reviewed FHWA’s summary of fiscal year 2018 program funds provided to states and federal laws and guidance related to implementing projects and measuring performance  We interviewed state DOT officials from the eight selected states and other stakeholders on the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects, and FHWA and FRA officials for their perspectives on managing the program, including how FHWA measures performance and assesses program effectiveness  We compared information collected from FHWA and FRA to federal internal-control standards and criteria on program evaluation identified in our previous work  In addition, we reviewed FHWA and FRA documents designed to guide states, such as the Grade Crossing Handbook, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Action Plan and Project Prioritization Noteworthy Practices Guide, and other related documents  We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  Susan A  Fleming, (202) 512-2834, Flemings@gao gov  In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant Director); Gary Guggolz (Analyst in Charge); Steven Campbell; Tim Guinane; Ben Licht; Catrin Jones; Delwen Jones; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Malika Rice; Larry Thomas; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: L  116-6 ), did not provide an exact funding guidance for Industry and Analysis  The mission of ITA's Enforcement and Compliance unit is to enforce U S  trade laws and ensure compliance with negotiated international trade agreements  It is responsible for enforcing U S  antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) laws; overseeing a variety of programs and policies regarding the enforcement and administration of U S  trade remedy laws; assisting U S  industry and businesses with unfair trade matters; and administering the Foreign Trade Zone program and other U S  import programs  For FY2019, the Administration requested $90 6 million for the Enforcement and Compliance unit, an increase of $3 1 million (3 6%) from the FY2018-enacted amount  For the requested increase in funding, ITA cited the unit's increasing number of AD/CVD investigations, its new focus on self-initiating AD/CVD cases, and the increased workload due to the tariffs and investigations initiated through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962  The House Appropriations Committee proposed $85 5 million for Enforcement and Compliance  The House committee proposal represented $2 1 million less (-2 3%) than the Administration's request, and $1 0 million (1 1%) more than the FY2018-enacted amount   The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $91 5 million for Enforcement and Compliance  The Senate recommendation represented $0 9 million more than the Administration's request and $4 0 million more than the 2018-enacted amount  The Senate committee report noted that the committee was supportive of the Administration's request to self-initiate AD/CVD cases  For FY2019 appropriations, the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), included $88 5 million for Enforcement and Compliance  This amount was $1 0 million more (1 1%) than the FY2018 funding, and $2 1 million less (-2 1%) than the Administration's request  USITC is an independent, quasi-judicial agency responsible for conducting trade-related investigations and providing independent technical advice related to U S  international trade policy to Congress, the President, and the USTR  The commission (1) investigates and determines whether imports injure a domestic industry or violate U S  intellectual property rights; (2) provides independent tariff, trade, and competitiveness-related analysis to the President and Congress; and (3) maintains the U S  tariff schedule  USITC also serves as a federal resource for trade data and other trade policy information  It makes most of its information and analyses available to the public to promote understanding of competitiveness, international trade issues, and the role that international trade plays in the U S  economy  In addition to the President's budget request for the commission, USITC also has bypass authority to submit its budget directly to Congress without revision by the President, pursuant to Section 175 of the Trade Act of 1975  For FY2019, the President requested $87 6 million for USITC, which represented a $6 1 million decrease (-6 5%) from the FY2018-enacted amount ($93 7 million)  While the President requested a decrease in funding for USITC, the commission's independent budget submission—sent directly to Congress without revision by the President—requested $97 5 million for FY2019, an increase of $3 8 million (4 0%) from the FY2018-enacted amount  USITC cited the increasing number of import injury cases in the previous five years and projected that the caseload would increase further in FY2019  Both the House and Senate committee-reported bills recommended $95 0 million for USITC  This amount was $7 4 million (8 4%) more than the President's request and $1 3 million (1 4%) more than the FY2018-enacted amount  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), provided $95 0 million for USITC, which was $7 4 million (8 4%) more than the President's request and $1 3 million (1 4%) more than the FY2018-enacted amount  USTR, located in the Executive Office of the President, is responsible for developing and coordinating U S  international trade and direct investment policies  USTR is the President's chief negotiator for international trade agreements, including commodity and direct investment negotiations  It negotiates directly with foreign governments to create trade agreements, resolve disputes, and participate in global trade policy organizations such as the World Trade Organization  It also meets with business groups, policymakers, and public interest groups on trade policy issues  In 2018, USTR led the negotiations for the modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the investigations into Chinese intellectual property practices  In addition to direct appropriations for USTR, supplementary funding for the agency is available through the congressionally established Trade Enforcement Trust Fund  For more detail on the trust fund, see section " Trade Enforcement Trust Fund ," below  For FY2019, the Administration requested $63 0 million for USTR's salaries and expenses, and no additional funding from the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund  The request represents a $9 6 million decrease (-13 2%) from the FY2018-enacted amounts ($72 6 million)  In the Administration's budget request, USTR outlined the Trump Administration's "aggressive trade agenda," and its goals of "(1) defending U S  national sovereignty over trade policy; (2) strictly enforcing U S  trade laws; (3) using all possible sources of leverage to encourage other countries to open their markets to U S  exports of goods and services, and protecting U S  intellectual property rights; and (4) negotiating better trade deals with countries in key markets around the world " Both the House and Senate committee-reported bills recommended a total of $72 6 million for USTR for FY2019  These proposals included $57 6 million for USTR's salaries and expenses and $15 0 million from the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund for enforcement activities authorized in Section 611 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 ( P L  114-125 )  The total proposals were $9 6 million (15 2%) more than the Administration's request, and were equal to the FY2018-enacted amount  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), provided a total of $63 0 million for USTR, which included $53 0 million in salaries and expenses for USTR and an additional $15 0 million to be derived from the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund  The total funding was $4 6 million less (-6 3%) than the FY2018 appropriated amount  Over the past decade, Congress has provided funding for specific trade-related programs, including (1) China trade enforcement and compliance activities; (2) trade promotion and attracting foreign direct investment to the United States through ITA's SelectUSA program; and (3) trade enforcement activities through the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund and the Interagency Center on Trade Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement (ICTIME, formerly the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC))  Since 2004, Congress has dedicated some of ITA's funding to AD/CVD enforcement and compliance activities with respect to China and other nonmarket economies  ITA's Office of China Compliance was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 ( P L  108-199 )  Its primary role has been to enforce U S  AD/CVD laws and to develop and implement other policies and programs aimed at countering unfair foreign trade practices in China  ITA's China Countervailing Duty Group was established in FY2009 to accommodate the workload that resulted from the application of countervailing duty law to imports from nonmarket economy countries  The Office of China Compliance is within the Enforcement and Compliance unit at ITA  ITA's FY2019 budget justification did not provide a breakdown of funding for its China AD/CVD activities  Both the House and Senate committee-reported bills included $16 4 million from ITA's funding for China AD/CVD enforcement and compliance activities for FY2019  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), provided $16 4 million from ITA's funding for China AD/CVD enforcement and compliance activities for FY2019  This amount was equal to the FY2018-enacted amount  SelectUSA was created in 2011 and is now part of ITA's Global Markets unit  It coordinates investment-related resources across more than 20 federal agencies to (1) promote the United States as an investment market and (2) address investor climate concerns that may impede investment in the United States  The program serves as an information resource for international investors and advocates for U S  cities, states, and regions as investment destinations  ITA's budget justification did not provide a breakdown for requested funding for SelectUSA  The House committee-reported bill did not propose a specific funding amount for SelectUSA  The Senate committee report recommended $10 0 million in funding for SelectUSA, an amount equal to the FY2018-enacted amount  The Senate Committee on Appropriation proposed making funding contingent on (1) SelectUSA updating its protocol to ensure that its programs did not encourage foreign investments by state-owned entities into the United States and (2) SelectUSA reporting its updated protocol to the committee within 30 days of enactment of the bill  According to the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), the final agreement adopted the Senate committee report language regarding SelectUSA  ITA's Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT) gathers statistics about air passenger travelers in the United States  These statistics are used across federal agencies, for a variety of purposes, such as to estimate the contribution of international travel to the economy, develop public policy on the travel industry, and forecast staffing needs at consulates and ports of entry  The Administration requested $5 0 million for FY2019 for SIAT to expand the survey and data collection  The Administration proposed that "$5 million in fee revenues collected from the surcharge on international travelers utilizing the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) be redirected to fully fund the SIAT " The House committee-reported bill did not include a specific recommendation for SIAT  According to the Senate committee report, the Senate Committee on Appropriations did not adopt the Administration's proposal to seek alternative funding sources for SIAT and "direct[ed] ITA to continue funding SIAT out of its base budget  Within funds provided, ITA [was] encouraged to increase the sample size for SIAT " The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), and the accompanying conference report did not provide specific language regarding SIAT  In order to provide additional funding for USTR's trade enforcement activities, Congress established the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund (TETF) in 2016  In Section 611 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 ( P L  114-125 ), Congress set up the trust fund and outlined authorized uses of the funds  According to Section 611(d), USTR can use funds from the TETF to monitor and enforce trade agreements and WTO commitments and to support trade capacity-building assistance to help partner countries meet their free-trade agreement obligations and commitments  USTR can also transfer funds to select federal agencies for trade enforcement activities authorized in Section 611(d) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  For FY2019, the Administration requested no funding to be derived from the TETF; the FY2018-enacted amount was $15 0 million  Both the House and Senate committee bills proposed $15 0 million from the TETF for enforcement activities authorized in Section 611 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  These proposals were equal to the FY2018-enacted amount  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), provided $15 0 million to be derived from the TETF for USTR, for enforcement activities authorized in Section 611 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  This amount is equal to the FY2018-enacted amount  ITEC was established by executive order in 2012 to take a "whole-of-government" approach to monitoring and enforcing U S  trade rights by using expertise from across the federal government  In 2016, the ITEC was succeeded by ICTIME, which Congress established through the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 ( P L  114-125 )  The executive-established ITEC received its funding through ITA; funding for ICTIME is now appropriated through USTR  ICTIME's purpose is to advance U S  trade policy through strengthened and coordinated enforcement of U S  trade rights  ICTIME investigates potential disputes under the auspices of the World Trade Organization; inspects potential disputes pursuant to bilateral and regional trade agreements to which the United States is a party; and carries out the functions of USTR with respect to the monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements to which the United States is a party  USTR and ITA work closely within the ICTIME to identify issues and develop information in areas of economic importance to U S  industries  The USTR's budget justification did not provide a breakdown for requested funding for ICTIME  The House and Senate committee-reported bills did not include a specific funding amount for ICTIME  The Senate committee report did note that the Senate committee supports ICTIME within the funds provided for USTR  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ) and the accompanying conference report also did not provide specific language regarding ICTIME 

ground_truth: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), was signed into law on February 15, 2019. The act included a total of $647.0 million in funding for three trade-related agencies under the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) account—the International Trade Administration (ITA), the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), and the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). This represents a 0.2% decrease from FY2018 appropriations. For FY2019, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, included $484.0 million in direct appropriations for ITA (a 0.4% increase from the FY2018 appropriation), $95.0 million in funding for USITC (a 1.4% increase), and a total of $68.0 million for USTR (a 0.2% decrease). The Administration's Request On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration submitted its FY2019 budget request to Congress. The FY2019 proposal included a total of $590.8 million for the three CJS trade-related agencies, an 8.9% decrease from FY2018 total appropriated amounts for these agencies. The Administration requested reducing funding for all three trade-related agencies. For FY2019, the request included $440.1 million in direct funding for ITA (an 8.7% decrease from the FY2018 appropriation), $87.6 million for USITC (a 6.5% decrease), and $63.0 million for USTR (a 13.2% decrease). Congressional Actions In the spring of 2018, the House and Senate reported FY2019 CJS appropriations bills, which included proposed funding for ITA, USITC, and USTR. The reported bills did not adopt many of the Administration's budget reductions, and instead proposed funding levels that were more similar to the FY2018-enacted amounts. The House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5952 on May 17, 2018. The House proposal recommended a total of $647.6 million for the three CJS trade-related agencies. This proposal was $56.8 million more (9.6%) than the Administration's request, and $0.7 million less (-0.1%) than the FY2018-enacted legislation. The House committee proposed $480.0 million in direct funding for ITA, $95.0 million for USTIC, and a total of $72.6 million for USTR, comprised of $57.6 million for salaries and expenses and an additional $15.0 million from the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund for trade enforcement activities as authorized by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-125). The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 3072 on June 14, 2018. The Senate committee-reported proposal recommended a total of $655.6 million for the three CJS trade-related agencies. This is $64.8 million (11.0%) more than the Administration's request and $7.3 million (1.1%) more than the FY2018-enacted appropriations. The Senate committee proposed $488.0 million in direct funding for ITA, $95 million for USITC, and a total of $72.6 million for USTR, comprised of $57.6 million for salaries and expenses and an additional $15.0 million from the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund for trade enforcement activities. After three continuing resolutions and a three-week lapse in funding, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act. 2019 (P.L. 116-6), which was signed into law on February 15, 2019. The act included a total of $647.0 million in funding for the three trade-related agencies, which represented a 0.2% decrease from FY2018 funding levels.