DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION

Experts Identified 

Areas for Operational 

Improvements without 

Implementing 

Organizational 

Changes

Report to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives

May 2017

GAO-17-478

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-478, a report to the 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives

May 2017

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Experts Identified Areas for Operational 

Improvements without Implementing Organizational 

Changes

What GAO Found

The United States Department of Transportation’s (DOT) nine modal 

administrations conduct a range of similar activities that are generally intended:

(1) to achieve different goals (e.g., to protect consumers or improve motor 

vehicle efficiency); (2) to serve different recipients (e.g., airlines, railroads); or (3) 

to meet different requirements (e.g., grant and credit programs specified in 

statute). DOT has numerous efforts to coordinate similar activities across 

administrations, such as formal coordinating bodies that bring together staff from 

multiple modes on a variety of topics. DOT also has processes designed to 

coordinate regulations’ development and to approve infrastructure projects.

Experts told GAO that DOT could make operational improvements but does not 

need to implement organizational changes, to help efficiently and effectively 

carry out its missions. Experts identified five areas:

• Collaboration and coordination: Additional efforts to collaborate among

the nine modal administrations, state and local governments, and other 

federal agencies would better support the development of transportation 

projects. For example, experts stated DOT could improve the effectiveness

of internal collaborative groups by including senior-level officials who could 

provide leadership and have the authority to make decisions.

• Data quality and analytics: Prioritizing which data to collect and 

improving analytic capabilities could help DOT ensure data are effectively

used. Experts stated DOT could do a better job identifying and improving 

data quality to answer specific, transportation-related questions.

• Regulation development: Improving how regulations are developed could 

help DOT ensure the agency’s priorities are addressed and coordinated

among all stakeholders. Experts stated that DOT could improve the quality 

and timeliness of its regulations by seeking earlier input from stakeholders.

• Project delivery processes: Streamlining and making the project delivery 

processes more consistent across modal administrations could reduce 

barriers and challenges for state and local governments. For example, 

experts suggested creating a central position to help state and local 

governments navigate the environmental review process.

• Addressing emerging issues: Proactively focusing on how to address

technological advancements (e.g., autonomous vehicles) and other 

emerging issues (e.g., safely transporting domestic oil and gas) could help 

DOT achieve its missions more efficiently and effectively. For example, 

experts were concerned that DOT was falling behind the private sector’s 

need for research and specific regulations for autonomous vehicles.

DOT officials agreed improvements are needed across DOT within the areas 

identified by experts. However, DOT did not identify plans to conduct a 

department-wide review. The administration recently released documents 

requiring federal agencies, including DOT, to assess their ability to efficiently and 

effectively meet their missions. In addition, federal internal control standards 

require agencies to assess and, typically, develop an action plan to determine

whether their policies are effective. Such an assessment could help DOT to 

improve how it implements programs across all of its modal administrations.

View GAO-17-478. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512- 2834 or 

FlemingS@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

DOT was established over 50 years 

ago, in part, to build, maintain, and 

oversee a vast national transportation 

system. Millions of Americans rely on 

this system every day to travel and 

receive goods and services. DOT is 

organized into nine modal

administrations that are generally 

responsible for activities related to 

specific transportation modes, such as

air, rail, public transit, and highways.

GAO was asked to examine how well 

DOT’s organizational structure enables

DOT to address today’s transportation 

challenges. This report addresses (1) 

activities performed by multiple DOT 

administrations to fulfill their missions 

and how, if at all, DOT coordinates 

these activities, and (2) expert opinions 

on what, if any, organizational or 

operational changes could enable DOT 

to more efficiently and effectively carry 

out its missions. GAO reviewed 

documentation on DOT’s missions, 

interviewed DOT officials, and worked 

with the National Academies of 

Science, Engineering, and Medicine to 

convene a meeting with transportation 

and organizational-change experts.

Experts were selected for their 

experience working with multiple 

modes of transportation and expertise 

in organizational change, among other 

factors.

What GAO Recommends

DOT should conduct a departmentwide review of its current efforts to 

address issues in the areas experts 

identified for improvement and develop 

an action plan to implement 

improvements, as identified, in these 

areas. DOT concurred with these 

recommendations and cited new 

initiatives to improve the department.
Page i GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Letter 1

Background 3

DOT’s Administrations Conduct and Have Methods to Coordinate 

Similar Activities 9

Experts Suggested Areas Where DOT Could Make Improvements 

without Organizational Changes to More Efficiently and 

Effectively Carry Out Its Missions 15

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Third-Party Views 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27

Appendix II Activities Performed by the Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations 33

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Transportation 45

Appendix IV Relevant Reports from GAO and Department of Transportation’s 

Office of Inspector General 47

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables

Table 1: GAO Identified Functional Categories and Areas of 

Activities Performed by Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT) Administrations 10

Table 2: Experts Who Participated in GAO’s Meeting on the 

Department of Transportation’s Organizational (DOT) 

Structure 28

Table 3: Transportation and Other Stakeholders Interviewed 31

Table 4: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Administrative Activities Area 33

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 5: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Developing Economic and Consumer Regulation Area 34

Table 6: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Economic Development Assistance Area 34

Table 7: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Oversight and Enforcement of Economic and Consumer 

Regulation Area 35

Table 8: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Operating Transportation Systems Area 35

Table 9: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Data Collection and Oversight Area 36

Table 10: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Research Technical Assistance Area 37

Table 11: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Sponsor and Conduct Research Area 37

Table 12: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Developing Safety Regulations Area 38

Table 13: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

International Safety Activities Area 39

Table 14: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Safety Certification, Continuing Oversight, and 

Enforcement Area 39

Table 15: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Safety Grant Programs Area 40

Table 16: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Safety Event Response Area 41

Table 17: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Safety Technical Assistance Area 41

Table 18: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Environmental Impact Mitigation Area 42

Table 19: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Project Environmental Reviews Area 42

Table 20: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Project Grant and Credit Programs Area 43

Table 21: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Project Oversight Area 43

Table 22: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the 

Project Technical Assistance Area 44
Page iii GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Figure

Figure 1: Organizational History of the Department of 

Transportation 5

Abbreviations

AATF Airport and Airway Trust Fund

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOT United States Department of Transportation

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

HTF Highway Trust Fund

MARAD Maritime Administration

National Academies National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OST Office of the Secretary

OST-R Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research 

and Technology

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration

SLSDC St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 18, 2017

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Peter DeFazio

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Americans depend on the nation’s vast transportation system to go about 

their lives. Over 300-million individuals use this network every day, 

spending an average of more than 80 minutes per day traveling for a 

range of activities, including going to and from work, school, places of 

worship, and commercial businesses.1 In addition, the nation’s freight 

transportation network is vital to the functioning of the economy, moving 

more than 20-billion tons in goods, valued at $18 trillion, annually.2

Americans rely on this system to gain access to goods and services every 

day and transportation-related purchases and investments account for 

close to 10 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.

For over 50 years, Congress has tasked the United States Department of 

Transportation (DOT)

• with overseeing the safety of the transportation system,

• with distributing federal funds to state and local governments to build 

and maintain the transportation network, and

• with conducting research on ongoing and emerging transportation 

topics, among other activities.

In fiscal year 2016, DOT had a budget of approximately $76 billion, which 

includes funding DOT distributes through grants, and had almost 51,000 

employees. In March 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

released a blueprint that proposes, in part, a 13 percent reduction in 

DOT’s discretionary budget and suggests altering the way several DOT 

programs are funded and organized. In addition, a March 2017 Executive 

Order requires federal agencies to submit to OMB a proposed plan to 

 1

DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Passenger Travel Facts and Figures 2016. 

2

DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freight Facts and Figures 2015.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, 

effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.3

You asked us to examine DOT’s organizational structure consisting of 

nine administrations, each of which is generally responsible for activities 

related to a specific transportation mode (e.g., air, rail, public transit, 

highways, etc.). Specifically, you were interested in how well this structure 

equips DOT to efficiently and effectively address current and future 

transportation challenges, including rapid technological advancements, 

population and economic changes, an aging infrastructure that requires 

substantial investment, and continuously increasing congestion across all 

transportation modes. This report addresses: (1) activities performed by 

multiple DOT modal administrations to fulfill their missions and how, if at 

all, DOT coordinates these activities, and (2) expert opinions on what, if 

any, organizational or operational changes could enable DOT to more 

efficiently and effectively carry out its missions.

To identify activities performed by multiple DOT administrations and how 

they coordinate, we reviewed historical as well as current statutes 

pertaining to DOT’s organization and documentation on DOT’s overall 

mission and the missions of the nine modal administrations, including 

strategic plans, budget documents, and organizational manuals.4 To 

collect expert opinion on organizational or other changes that could 

enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions, in 

September 2016, with the assistance of the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), we 

convened a GAO meeting with 18 experts. Our participants included 

former DOT officials, representatives from local and state transportation 

organizations, private businesses that use our nation’s transportation 

system, and other experts in transportation policy and organizational 

 3

According to the order, agencies have 180 days from the date of the Executive Order to 

submit a proposed plan to OMB. OMB is also to accept public comments suggesting 

improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch. OMB is then to 

submit a proposed plan to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the 

efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies. In developing that plan, OMB 

must consider a list of non-exhaustive factors. For example, OMB must consider the costs 

of shutting down or merging agencies and whether some or all of the functions of an 

agency or program are redundant or better left to state or local governments or to the 

private sector. Exec. Order No. 13781, Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive 

Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch, 82 Fed. Reg. 13959 (Mar. 13, 2017).

4

While we identified DOT activities, we did not evaluate how effective these activities are 

at fulfilling DOT’s missions.
Page 3 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

change management. We used several criteria to select experts, 

including experience with multiple modes of transportation and DOT 

administrations, and expertise in organizational change, among others. 

We used a content analysis and follow-up questionnaire to analyze 

information obtained from these experts.5 In addition, we reviewed prior 

work by GAO and the DOT Office of Inspector General (DOT OIG). This 

work discussed the areas for improvement experts identified. To address 

both of our objectives and gather background information, we interviewed 

DOT officials from the Office of the Secretary (OST) and all nine modal 

administrations, as well as former DOT officials, representatives from 

state and local transportation agencies, transportation stakeholders from 

consulting firms, non-profits and think tanks, and academics in the field of 

organizational change.6 See appendix I for more detailed information on 

our scope and methodology, including listings of the experts we met with.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 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.

DOT and its administrations interact with all levels of government and the 

private sector. When Congress created DOT in 1966, it combined several 

existing federal transportation organizations with responsibility over 

aviation, waterways, railroads, and highways.7 As shown in figure 1, 

Congress has taken action over the past 50 years to create and dissolve 

 5

The views represented by the experts from whom we gathered information are not 

generalizable to those of all experts on DOT’s organizational structure and operations; 

however, we were able to secure the participation of a diverse, highly qualified group of 

experts and believe their views provide a balanced and informed perspective on the topics 

discussed.

6

For the purposes of our work, the DOT Office of Inspector General (DOT OIG), which 

does not perform transportation-related functions, has been excluded. In addition, we did 

not include the Surface Transportation Board, which became an independent federal 

agency in 2015.

7

President Lyndon Johnson proposed the creation of DOT in his 1966 State of the Union 

Address. Legislation was enacted creating DOT on October 15, 1966, and DOT’s first 

official day of operation was April 1, 1967.

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

administrations within DOT, and transfer some responsibilities to different 

administrations or federal agencies.8 Despite changes like these over the 

years, DOT’s organizational structure and activities have remained largely 

focused on transportation mode. DOT currently consists of nine modal 

administrations, four of which were established at the inception of the 

department.

 8

Over the years, DOT has proposed organizational changes that Congress did not act 

upon. One of the most recent large-scale reorganization proposals was sent to Congress 

in 1995 and would have consolidated DOT into three modal administrations: FAA, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, and a new Intermodal Transportation Administration. Since the 1995 

proposal, DOT has sent six pieces of proposed legislation to Congress that touch upon 

DOT’s organizational structure, including proposals to create performance-based 

organizations within FAA and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

(SLSDC). None of these proposals have been enacted into law.
Page 5 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Figure 1: Organizational History of the Department of Transportation

Note: Several of these administrations were created within other government agencies and 

subsequently moved to DOT. This figure does not provide a complete history of each administration; 

rather, it is intended to indicate when administrations became a part of or left DOT.

DOT is made up of nine modal administrations and OST, each of which 

has its own mission—primarily focused on enhancing mobility and safety. 

OST is responsible: (1) for coordinating and overseeing the activities of 

DOT’s modal administrations; (2) for promoting intermodal 

transportation—in which multiple modes of transportation are used to 

move people or goods; (3) for formulating national transportation policy; 

(4) for negotiating and implementing international transportation 

agreements; and (5) for awarding multi-modal transportation grants, 
Page 6 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

among other responsibilities. While OST is responsible for overseeing the 

modal administrations, each individual administration is headed by a 

political appointee and has its own missions, goals, and responsibilities, 

which are achieved through varying activities:

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): FAA is responsible for 

overseeing the safety of civil aviation through the issuance and 

enforcement of regulations and standards related to (1) the 

manufacture, operation, certification, and maintenance of aircraft; (2) 

the certification of the aviation workforce; and (3) the maintenance 

and operations of airports. FAA also enforces hazardous material 

regulations for shipments by air, regulates the launch and reentry 

operations of commercial space-transportation companies, 

administers aviation-related grant programs, and operates a network 

of airport traffic-control towers, air-route traffic-control centers, and 

flight service stations.9

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): FHWA is responsible for 

coordinating highway transportation programs in cooperation with 

states and other partners through the Federal-Aid Highway Program, 

which provides federal financial assistance to states to construct and 

improve highways, roads, and bridges, and to improve the safety of 

public roads.10 FHWA also provides services through the Federal 

Lands Highway Program to improve access to public lands and 

manages a research, development, and technology program.

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA): FMCSA is 

responsible for enforcing safety and hazardous materials regulations 

on commercial motor vehicles (e.g., trucks for moving freight and 

household goods, and buses); improving commercial motor vehicle 

technologies and safety information systems; and increasing 

awareness of the importance of safely operating commercial motor 

vehicles. FMCSA also provides grants to state and local government 

agencies in a variety of areas, including for improving the safe 

operation of commercial motor vehicles, commercial drivers-licensing 

programs, and overseeing newly registered motor carriers.

 9

In fiscal year 2016, officials responsible for operating the nation’s air-traffic control 

system made up 58 percent (30,000) of all DOT employees.

10Funds distributed to states and local government agencies through the Federal-Aid 

Highway Program ($42 billion) represented approximately half of DOT’s fiscal year 2016 

budget.
Page 7 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): FRA is responsible for 

developing and monitoring railroad compliance with federally 

mandated safety standards on track maintenance, inspection 

standards, and operating practices. FRA also administers federal 

grant funds for passenger and freight rail infrastructure and services 

(including Amtrak), safety improvements, and congestion relief 

programs. In addition, FRA conducts research and development tests 

on projects to improve safe rail transportation, investigates rail 

accidents, provides training to and collaborates with the rail industry, 

and promotes public education campaigns on highway-rail grade 

crossing safety and the dangers associated with trespassing on rail 

property.

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA): FTA is responsible for 

promoting the development, improvement, and safety of public 

transportation systems, which include buses, rail, trolleys, and ferries, 

through a variety of federal grant programs to local transit agencies. 

FTA oversees these grants and evaluates whether grantees adhere to 

federal standards. FTA also oversees safety measures and helps 

develop next-generation technology research. Historically, FTA has 

not directly overseen the safety of transit systems, but was granted 

additional safety authorities under several recent surface 

transportation authorizations, including the ability to temporarily take 

over for an inadequate or incapable state-safety oversight agency.11

FTA exercised this authority by taking temporary responsibility for 

safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

in October 2015.

• Maritime Administration (MARAD): MARAD is responsible for 

promoting the development and maintenance of the United States 

merchant marine, which is sufficient to carry the nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and may be called to serve as naval and 

military auxiliary in times of war or national emergency. As part of this

responsibility, MARAD funds and operates the United States

Merchant Marine Academy and provides funding to six state maritime 

academies. MARAD is also responsible for ensuring the United States 

maintains shipbuilding and repair service capabilities, efficient ports, 

effective intermodal water and land transportation systems, and 

reserve shipping capacity in times of national emergency.

 11These authorities were granted under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (Pub. L. No. 112-141 (2012)) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST Act) (Pub. L. No. 114-94 (2015)).
Page 8 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): NHTSA is 

responsible for setting and enforcing safety performance standards for 

motor vehicles and equipment and providing grants to state and local 

governments for conducting local highway safety programs. NHTSA 

also investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, sets and enforces 

fuel economy standards, helps states and local communities address 

impaired driving, promotes the use of safety technologies, and 

conducts research on driver behavior and traffic safety, among other 

activities. In addition, NHTSA promotes the use of safety belts, child 

safety seats, and motor cycle helmets; establishes and enforces 

vehicle anti-theft system regulations; and provides consumer 

information on motor vehicle safety.

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA): 

PHMSA is responsible for overseeing the safe transportation of oil, 

gas, and other hazardous materials by all transportation modes, 

including pipelines, through the development and enforcement of 

regulations and standards, education, research, and assistance to the 

emergency response community. PHMSA also oversees the safety of 

the nation’s oil and gas pipeline network by inspecting pipelines, 

collecting and analyzing data, and investigating accidents to identify 

potential safety improvements.

• St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC): SLSDC is 

a wholly owned government corporation within DOT that is 

responsible for working with the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway 

Management Corporation to oversee operations for commercial and 

noncommercial vessels on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence 

Seaway. SLSDC coordinates with Canadian authorities on operational 

issues such as traffic management, navigation aids, safety, and 

environmental programs. SLSDC and Canadian authorities also work 

on trade development opportunities between port communities, 

shippers, and receivers.

While DOT is responsible for conducting a wide range of activities, many 

of DOT’s program requirements are established in statute. For example, 

FRA, FHWA, and PHMSA, among other administrations, are responsible 

for enforcing statutory safety standards. In addition, DOT’s modal 

administrations administer both discretionary and formula grant programs, 

both of which must be authorized in statute.

The majority of DOT’s funding is provided from transportation related 

taxes and user fees, which are collected for specific purposes. The 

Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which was established by Congress in 1956, 

collects motor fuel and truck-related taxes for use on highway and mass 
Page 9 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

transit programs. For example, Congress appropriates funds from the 

HTF to FHWA to distribute to states for construction, reconstruction, and 

improvement of highways and bridges. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund 

(AATF), which was established by Congress in 1970, collects airline ticket 

and aviation fuel taxes for use on airport and airway system programs 

administered by FAA. Congress appropriates funds from the AATF to 

FAA for use on technological improvements to the air traffic control 

system, research on issues related to aviation safety, grants for airport 

planning and development, and the operation of the air traffic control 

system. DOT also receives funds from the U.S. General Fund through the 

annual appropriations cycle.12

DOT’s administrations have similar missions and responsibilities and, 

therefore, perform similar activities related to helping the Department 

meet its overall mission of ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and 

convenient transportation system. We have found that it is important to 

identify instances when multiple federal agencies or programs engage in 

similar activities in order to determine whether opportunities exist to

reduce, eliminate, or better manage fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication.13 We identified a number of areas in which DOT performs 

activities and determined that multiple administrations perform activities in 

each area. Broadly, these areas fall into six functional categories: 

 12In fiscal year 2016, DOT received approximately $53.7 billion, $14.3 billion, and $6.5 

billion from the HTF, AATF, and the U.S. General Fund, respectively. We have designated 

funding the nation’s surface transportation system as a high risk area in part because 

motor fuel and other truck-related taxes, which support the HTF, have not increased since 

1993. As a result, Congress transferred a total of about $141 billion in general revenues to 

the HTF on eight occasions between 2008 and 2015. 

13GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO-15-49SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2015).

DOT’s 

Administrations 

Conduct and Have 

Methods to 

Coordinate Similar 

Activities 

DOT’s Administrations 

Conduct Similar Activities 

That Generally Have 

Different Goals, 

Recipients, Requirements, 

or Funding Sources
Page 10 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

administrative, economic development and consumer protection, 

operating transportation systems, research, safety, and supporting 

infrastructure projects (see table 1).14

Table 1: GAO Identified Functional Categories and Areas of Activities Performed by Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

Administrations

Functional categories Activity areas

Administrative Providing internal services that support DOT’s operations, such as information technology, 

financial and budgeting support, and human resources.

Economic development and consumer 

protection

Performing activities intended to provide economic development, protect U.S. industries, 

and protect consumers in areas including:

• Developing economic and consumer regulation,

• Economic development assistance, and

• Oversight and enforcement of economic and consumer regulation.

Operating transportation systems Operating, or providing for the operation of, transportation systems.

Research Performing activities intended to further DOT’s research goals including:

• Data collection and oversight,

• Research technical assistance, and

• Sponsor and conduct research.

Safety Performing activities intended to improve the safety of the U.S. transportation system in 

areas including:

• Developing safety regulations,

• International safety activities,

• Safety certification, continuing oversight, and enforcement,

• Safety grant programs,

• Safety event response, and

• Safety technical assistance.

Supporting infrastructure projects Performing activities intended to support infrastructure projects in areas including:

• Environmental impact mitigation,

• Project environmental reviews,

• Project grant and credit programs,

• Project oversight, and

• Project technical assistance.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Note: These areas outline the primary areas of activities DOT undertakes to achieve its intended 

outcomes; they are not a comprehensive list of every area in which DOT performs activities.

 14Appendix II provides more details on the activities performed by modal administrations 

in these areas.
Page 11 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Multiple DOT administrations perform similar activities in each of the 

areas we identified. For example, FAA, FHWA, FRA, FMCSA, FTA, 

MARAD, NHTSA, PHMSA, and OST develop a variety of safety 

regulations for airports and airlines, railroads, pipeline construction, and 

the transportation of hazardous materials, among others. In addition, five 

modal administrations (FAA, FHWA, FRA, FTA, and MARAD) and OST 

support infrastructure projects by conducting grant-making activities for 

airport planning and development, highway projects, and multi-modal 

projects that cut across DOT administrations, among others. A different 

group of five modal administrations (FAA, FMCSA, FRA, MARAD, and 

NHTSA) and OST conduct activities related to overseeing economic and 

consumer regulations, including enforcing shipping laws designed to 

ensure federal projects use U.S.-flagged vessels, fuel-economy 

standards for automakers, and regulations governing household goods 

movers.

While we identified similar activities performed by multiple DOT 

administrations, we determined that there were important reasons why 

similar activities may be appropriate or necessary. Specifically, many of 

these activities have different purposes, including achieving different 

goals, serving different recipients, and meeting different statutory

requirements. For example, DOT performs a number of economic and 

consumer-protection activities designed to achieve different goals and 

outcomes, including supporting the U.S. shipping industry, protecting the 

public from household goods movers that mislead or cheat them, and 

improving the efficiency of motor vehicles. Additionally, DOT carries out 

safety oversight of a number of different types of transportation operators 

including airlines, motor carriers, pipelines, railroads and public-transit 

operators, but the safety requirements and expertise necessary for 

determining whether these types of operators are adhering to federal 

regulations and operating safely can be very different. Further, DOT 

carries out a number of different project-grant and credit programs 

specified in statute with different requirements and conducts a number of 

programs that receive funding from different sources such as the HTF, 

the AATF, and general appropriations.

We also identified some general management activities conducted by 

multiple DOT administrations that have similar goals or intended 

recipients. Specifically, each DOT modal administration conducts 

administrative activities in the areas of information technology, human 

capital, and financial management, all of which have similar goals, 

strategies, and beneficiaries. For example, each modal administration 

and OST carry out human capital activities related to recruitment, hiring, 
Page 12 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

benefits, payroll, security assessments, and employee appraisal and 

retention. Each administration also conducts some information technology 

activities, such as hardware and software acquisitions, maintaining 

networks, and troubleshooting. Finally, each administration also performs 

financial management activities such as funds disbursement, auditing, 

and reconciliation.

According to department officials, DOT has taken steps to better leverage 

these similar administrative activities across modal administrations, 

including adopting shared services, where services that multiple 

administrations need are consolidated within a smaller number of 

administrations. For example, DOT operates a single financial center in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to provide financial management services 

such as accounting and transaction processing for each DOT 

administration as well as for additional federal agencies.15 Additionally, 

DOT has consolidated a number of human resources functions into a 

single division within FHWA, which posts vacancy announcements and 

collects employment applications, among other things.16 DOT officials told 

us that consolidating these services has improved operational efficiency 

and purchasing power. For example, officials from one of DOT’s smaller 

modal administrations told us that they are able to take advantage of 

DOT’s purchasing power to obtain better rates when purchasing 

information technology hardware.

DOT has a variety of methods to coordinate similar activities and leverage 

resources and knowledge. Some of these coordination efforts are focused 

on individual projects that involve more than one administration, and 

others are focused on broad topics, such as safety, in which all 

administrations play a role. DOT has established some of these 

coordination methods administratively. Others have been mandated by 

law, such as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) 

of 2015, which mandated changes to several areas of DOT operations 

including research, safety, and environmental reviews. Current and 

former DOT officials, state and local transportation officials, 

representatives from private industry, and former congressional staff we 

 15The Enterprise Services Center is organized within FAA’s Mike Monroney Aeronautical 

Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It provides services to DOT administrations as well 

as other government agencies in a number of areas including financial management, 

information technology, and travel management.

16Human resource functions conducted by FAA are not included in this initiative.

DOT Has a Variety of 

Methods to Coordinate 

Similar Activities
Page 13 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

interviewed, described several coordination and collaboration methods 

used by DOT and its administrations, including:

• Formal Coordinating Bodies: DOT has established a variety of 

types of formal coordinating bodies including councils that bring 

together staff from multiple administrations, centralized offices within 

OST that have decision-making authority for DOT activities, and 

cross-administration teams to handle individual multi-modal projects. 

For example, OST convenes a formal safety council intended to 

improve communication on safety-related issues. This council serves 

as a forum for executives at each modal administration to discuss 

emerging safety issues and coordinate responses. Additionally, 

recently enacted legislation authorizing surface transportation 

programs established a single office within OST—called the Build 

America Bureau—to act as a point of contact and coordination for 

entities seeking to use several DOT credit programs.17 In an example 

of a cross-administration team, FMCSA and NHTSA established a 

project-specific team with staff from both administrations to produce a 

joint, proposed rulemaking on speed-limiting devices for large

commercial vehicles.18 The administrations’ proposed complementary 

rules in September 2016 cover the areas of operation over which 

each has jurisdiction: NHTSA’s rule would require manufacturers to 

install the speed-limiting devices on new large commercial vehicles, 

and FMCSA’s rule would require interstate motor carriers to use and 

maintain the devices. DOT officials told us that participation in these 

 17The FAST Act required DOT to establish a National Surface Transportation and 

Innovative Finance Bureau. This bureau is referred to as the Build America Bureau and is 

to provide assistance and communicate best practices and financing and funding 

opportunities to eligible entities for programs including the Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act program, which provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and 

standby lines of credit to infrastructure projects; for the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing program, which provides direct federal loans and loan guarantees 

to finance the development of railroad infrastructure; for the Private Activity Bonds 

program, which allows states and local jurisdictions to issue preferred-rate, tax-exempt 

bonds for transportation projects undertaken by private developers or operators; and for 

the Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term 

Achievement of National Efficiencies grants program, which provides discretionary grants 

to infrastructure projects intended to improve the movement of freight.

18Speed-limiting devices govern the maximum speed that a vehicle can achieve on level 

ground. Studies have shown that crash severity increases with increased travel speed and 

that crashes involving heavy trucks are particularly sensitive to increases in speed due to 

the truck’s relatively larger mass. According to NHTSA and FMCSA, this proposed rule is 

intended to improve overall highway safety by reducing the severity of highway crashes 

and the resulting number of fatalities. See 81 Fed. Reg. 61,942 (Sept 7, 2016).
Page 14 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

coordinating bodies and establishing cross-administration teams 

allows the modal administrations to utilize expertise from across DOT 

and has resulted in more consistent responses to issues. DOT 

officials and experts we spoke with also told us that operating 

coordinated multi-modal programs with centralized authority has 

allowed DOT to more efficiently provide services and assistance to a 

variety of projects using a consistent set of program rules and 

requirements.

• Coordinated Processes: DOT has coordinated processes for its 

administrations to use in some areas such as developing regulations 

and approving infrastructure projects. For example, DOT has an order 

containing general provisions for the environmental review process at 

all the modal administrations, and these requirements state that DOT 

should, where possible, coordinate reviews into a single process. 

Additionally, the FAST Act required DOT to apply existing 

environmental review processes to certain FRA projects.19 DOT 

officials told us that they are currently working on rulemaking and 

guidance for the environmental review process as it applies to FRA. 

DOT officials told us that standardized processes can avoid 

duplicative work for projects requiring the approval of more than one 

DOT administration, which can shorten the length of the 

environmental review process and improve DOT’s efficiency.

• Informal Coordination: DOT officials told us that while DOT has a 

number of formal coordination mechanisms, much of the coordination 

done by OST and the modal administrations occurs informally. 

Officials said that this type of coordination is primarily relationshipdriven and can take many forms including verbal information requests, 

document sharing, or other methods. For example, FHWA officials 

noted instances when staff informally shared information on methods 

for conducting assessments of highway and railroad bridges with 

FRA, whose inspection program began more recently. DOT officials 

also said that they frequently use informal coordination to leverage 

DOT’s multi-modal expertise when working on smaller projects that 

might not be large enough to merit a formal cross-administration 

team. DOT officials told us that informal coordination is flexible and 

easy to conduct, and enhances communication across the modal 

administrations.

 19Section 11503 of the FAST Act added 49 U.S.C. § 24201. This provision requires FRA 

to apply the environmental review process in 23 U.S.C. § 139 to certain railroad projects 

to the greatest extent feasible.
Page 15 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

According to the experts in transportation and organizational change we 

met with, DOT could make operational improvements, but does not need 

to implement organizational changes to efficiently and effectively carry out 

its missions. Specifically, a majority of these experts told us that the 

potential benefits of implementing a large-scale change in DOT’s 

organizational structure—such as reorganizing the modal administrations 

or restructuring the department to focus less on transportation modes—

would probably not outweigh the costs of implementing these changes.20

However, experts identified several areas in which they believe DOT 

could make operational improvements to help the department more 

efficiently and effectively carry out its missions: (1) collaboration and 

coordination; (2) data quality and analytics; (3) regulation development; 

(4) project delivery processes; and (5) addressing emerging issues.21

Both we and the DOT OIG have repeatedly reported on challenges that 

DOT’s individual modal administrations face in these areas.22 (See app. 

 20Our prior work also discusses the need to balance benefits and costs when considering 

changes to a federal agency’s organizational structure. Specifically, we found that 

implementing large-scale change management initiatives—such as mergers and 

organizational transformations—are not simple endeavors, can be complex and potentially 

expensive, are not quick, easy, or automatic ways of producing desired change, and can 

have unintended consequences. As such, we reported that decision makers need to 

balance any potential benefits of consolidation against the physical, upfront financial, 

bureaucratic, and political costs, while considering alternatives such as increased 

cooperation or collaboration that may provide other paths to increased efficiency. GAO, 

Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities for Improvement and 

Considerations for Restructuring, GAO-12-454T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012); 

Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational 

Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003); and Streamlining 

Government: Questions to Consider When Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical 

Infrastructure and Management Functions, GAO-12-542 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 

2012).

21Experts mentioned several areas outside of DOT’s control that were not included in the 

scope of this review, including challenges associated with the current funding environment 

and addressing statutory requirements. We have previously commented on these 

challenges, including designating funding the nation’s surface transportation system as a 

high risk area because addressing it in a sustainable way requires both Congress and the 

administration to agree on a long-term plan to finance the HTF. GAO, High-Risk Series: 

An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015).

22The DOT OIG has reported on many of these issues. Most recently, the DOT OIG 

identified eight of DOT’s top management challenges for fiscal year 2017. Our five areas 

for improvement are identified as part of their challenges. For example, the DOT OIG 

highlights the need for DOT to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and strengthen 

its cybersecurity strategies, topics that directly relate to the issues experts identified in 

addressing emerging issues. DOT OIG, Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 

2017, PT-2017-007 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2016).

Experts Suggested 

Areas Where DOT 

Could Make 

Improvements without 

Organizational 

Changes to More 

Efficiently and 

Effectively Carry Out 

Its Missions
Page 16 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports in each of these 

areas.)

Collaboration and coordination: Efforts to support transportation 

projects and address concerns—such as driver or operator fatigue—often 

benefit from collaboration among DOT modal administrations, other 

federal agencies, state and local stakeholders, and private industry.23

Experts we spoke to stated that DOT should improve collaboration and 

coordination efforts with these internal and external groups—efforts that 

neither require organizational or regulatory changes. We and the DOT 

OIG also have bodies of work suggesting ways to improve how DOT 

collaborates and coordinates.24 For example, we recommended in 2012 

that certain DOT modal administrations improve collaboration and 

communication activities designed to help state and local governments 

use intelligent-transportation system technologies to mitigate traffic 

congestion.25

Many of the concerns DOT is working to address impact multiple modes 

of transportation and experts noted that there are opportunities for DOT to 

improve how it coordinates internally across its modal administrations. 

For example, experts discussed several of DOT’s ongoing internal 

collaborative groups and noted that some groups could have been more 

effective if they consistently included senior-level officials to provide 

needed leadership and decision-making authority. Experts, as well as 

DOT officials, also believed that DOT could more effectively leverage 

existing expertise across administrations, such as in the area of safety, 

and ensure that all affected modal administrations are represented when 

discussing cross-modal issues. DOT officials we spoke with agreed that 

ongoing collaboration and coordination is critical and noted that the use of 

some internal coordination tools, such as crosscutting councils are 

helpful, but could be more effective. For example, officials indicated that 

coordination often occurs more informally, such as through individual 

 23Driver and train operator fatigue may contribute to deadly traffic accidents and railroad 

crashes. Fatigue may be due to a lack of adequate sleep, extended work hours, strenuous 

work, or non-work activities, or a combination of other factors.

24See appendix IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports.

25GAO, Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration and 

Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage Congestion,

GAO-12-308 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012). DOT addressed these recommendations 

by facilitating learning exchanges among state and local officials and improving the 

availability of additional resources on its relevant websites.

Expert opinion

“...there are definitely some operations that 

could be improved... there are opportunities 

for greater collaboration... especially in areas 

that are clearly intermodal or multi-modal, 

some form of... councils or other operating 

bodies that work across the modes... seems 

like an easy, maybe even a non-legislative 

sort of a fix that could really make a difference 

in certain areas.”

Source: GAO-17-478
Page 17 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

relationships which can result in some officials not always being aware of 

the collaboration efforts that are occurring outside of their own modal 

administration. Further, officials noted that the strength and efficacy of 

any DOT-wide or administration-level initiative is dependent on the 

leadership and often the Secretary’s agenda.

Experts also discussed opportunities for DOT to improve how it 

coordinates externally with state and local governments and other federal 

agencies. Specifically, given the increase in projects that include multiple 

modes of transportation, some experts noted that better collaboration with 

state and local government agency partners is needed to provide 

consistent information and help facilitate project development and 

implementation. DOT officials we spoke with said a variety of methods 

are used to coordinate its activities with state and local agencies to help 

achieve DOT’s missions, including the use of standard processes for 

developing regulations and approving infrastructure projects.

Lastly, experts discussed how decisions other agencies make can impact 

DOT and suggested there are opportunities for DOT to improve how it 

coordinates externally. Experts noted that strategies for addressing 

issues such as climate change are being discussed by several different 

agencies and that DOT could more effectively use existing interagency 

offices or positions to ensure it is part of the discussions. We have found 

that federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement 

interagency collaborative efforts, such as establishing interagency task 

forces.26

 26Our work shows that complex, crosscutting issues may involve many collaborative 

mechanisms and in order to be effective, also benefit from certain key features, such as 

having sustained leadership, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and all relevant 

participants involved. GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 

2012). 
Page 18 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Data quality and analytics: DOT collects and uses data to carry out

most of its activities, including developing safety regulations, identifying 

emerging safety issues, and conducting oversight. For example, FMCSA 

uses inspection data to conduct oversight on specific motor carriers, and 

NHTSA uses crash data to identify and implement policies to address 

issues such as pedestrian and bicycle safety. As such, there may be 

unintended consequences of not using data effectively. Experts we spoke 

with raised concerns about the accuracy of transportation data and 

believe there are opportunities within DOT’s current organizational 

structure to do a better job collecting complete, relevant, consistent, and 

reliable transportation data, which DOT and stakeholders need to make 

decisions. Experts also discussed the need to focus on prioritizing the 

data DOT collects to ensure they are of high quality and can be used to 

answer specific transportation-related questions. We and the DOT OIG 

have issued a number of reports expressing concern with the quality of 

DOT’s data and how they are used.27 For example, in 2012, we identified 

limitations in how FMCSA was using data to target new applicants 

suspected of fraudulent activity for further investigation and 

recommended FMCSA develop a data-driven tool.28 DOT officials from 

the modal administrations agreed that improving data quality is important 

and would allow DOT to leverage limited resources for identifying new 

and emerging safety issues. The officials described several ongoing data 

initiatives, such as a transportation data forum within DOT and efforts to 

streamline existing data systems. However, officials also noted 

challenges with addressing data quality, in part due to the number of 

stakeholders involved in and responsible for transportation-related data 

collection, including local and state officials and private entities. For 

example, DOT officials noted that the responsibility of data collection 

often falls to local and state officials who may not have the necessary 

expertise to accurately report certain types of safety events. DOT officials 

also cited challenges in establishing common definitions and measures 

for collecting and using the data, and dealing with large volumes of data 

that often come from numerous sources. Lastly, DOT officials noted that 

 27See appendix IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports.

28GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: New Applicant Reviews Should Expand to Identify Freight 

Carriers Evading Detection, GAO-12-364 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2012). 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2012). FMCSA addressed this recommendation by 

developing a risk-based data-driven screening methodology that allows DOT to screen all 

new motor carriers applying for operating authority and helps identify suspicious motor 

carriers for additional investigation.

Expert opinion

“We believe the data has value. We have this 

enormous capability to generate so much data 

now. So the question really is... [how] to be 

more precise as to what data we want to 

keep, what data we want to collect, and what 

questions we want to answer.”

Source: GAO-17-478
Page 19 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

statutes and regulations may also constrain DOT from collecting certain 

types of data to support its mission.

Experts also emphasized the importance of having improved analytic 

capabilities to ensure these data are used effectively. In particular, 

experts noted that DOT could be a leader in providing analytical tools to 

state and local government agencies that do not always have the 

necessary expertise or resources to conduct data-driven evaluations. 

Along those lines, we recently recommended, for example, that DOT 

should identify appropriate freight data sources, information, and analytic 

tools for transportation modes involved in the freight network and supply 

chains.29 DOT officials agreed that data analytics are important, and 

noted that a number of modal administrations have specific departments 

or programs designed to maintain and analyze data on transportation 

incidents and on federal inspection and enforcement actions. DOT 

officials also noted that despite resource constraints, DOT has prioritized 

the collection, maintenance, and management of data for several grant 

programs.

Regulation development: Annually, DOT undertakes around onehundred rulemakings—some of which, according to DOT officials, have 

become more complex and technical in recent years—that range from 

vehicle-to-vehicle communication safety standards (by NHTSA) to entrylevel commercial driver training (by FMCSA) to underground storage 

facilities for natural gas (by PHMSA).30 According to experts, DOT could 

evaluate and consider changes to how it develops regulations that do not 

require organizational changes to ensure that the department’s priorities 

are coordinated and addressed. For example, experts suggested that 

DOT consider methods for ensuring the timely review of rulemakings 

across the modal administrations and noted that seeking stakeholder 

input early in the regulation development process would save both time 

and money, as well as improve the quality of the regulation itself. 

Standards for internal control in the federal government state that federal 

 29GAO, West Coast Ports: Better Supply Chain Information Could Improve DOT’s Freight 

Efforts, GAO-17-23 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2016). DOT concurred with our 

recommendation.

30A recent Executive Order requiring that for every one new regulation issued, at least two 

existing regulations be identified for elimination, may require additional regulatory 

coordination across federal departments and agencies. Exec. Order No.13771, 

Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, 

82 Fed. Reg. 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017).
Page 20 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

agencies should review policies and procedures to determine their 

effectiveness in achieving their objectives and to determine if efforts—

such as a regulation—are designed and implemented appropriately. 

These standards also state that relevant, reliable, and timely information 

should be used to make informed decisions.31 We also have found that 

some DOT rulemakings developed by individual modal administrations 

could benefit from additional data, and may not be completed in a timely 

manner.32 For example, in 2014, we found that, despite acknowledging 

the risks of federally unregulated pipelines, PHMSA had not taken timely 

action on a rulemaking for addressing this risk and recommended that 

PHMSA move forward with the rulemaking process it started in 2011.33

DOT officials agreed that changes in the regulation development process 

could offer a number of benefits. For example, according to FHWA 

officials, increased coordination during the rulemaking process could 

provide the affected modal administrations an opportunity to review 

documents and more time to offer comments. According to FHWA 

officials, this process could potentially reduce the number of revisions 

needed to address and incorporate internal comments received. Other 

DOT officials also noted that many of its rulemaking efforts have been 

successful and well coordinated across DOT, as well as with other 

stakeholders, including subject-matter experts and the private sector. 

Specifically, officials from FAA discussed a number of processes and 

tools that they use, including rulemaking advisory committees and 

councils, a data tool that prioritizes upcoming rulemaking efforts, and a 

comprehensive database that collects data from almost 200 sources 

across government and industry. Other administrations also use similar 

tools and several recent initiatives have offered officials from these 

administrations the opportunity to learn more about FAA’s rulemaking 

processes.

 31GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

32See appendix IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports.

33Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is Taking Actions to Address 

Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety, GAO-14-667 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 2014). PHMSA has drafted proposed regulations for both gas 

and hazardous liquid gathering pipelines, which partly address our recommendation, but 

has determined that it needs one year’s worth of data before it can begin assessing what 

regulations are needed to fully address the risks of hazardous liquid pipelines.
Page 21 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Experts also noted the importance of using data to drive regulatory 

activity in a proactive manner, rather than conducting regulatory activity in 

reaction to current events, such as an oil spill or a railway accident. We 

have noted some of the challenges DOT modal administrations face in 

developing and issuing regulations. For example, we recently found that 

stakeholders in the commercial space industry have mixed opinions on 

what, if any, legislative or regulatory changes are appropriate to 

accommodate certain technologies.34 We have also noted that data 

limitations, uncertainties, and lack of transparency may contribute to a 

lack of confidence by important stakeholders in the implementation of a 

rulemaking.35 DOT officials stated that it is challenging to expeditiously 

move forward in the traditional regulatory process because of the 

established procedures built-in to allow appropriate time for consultation, 

public input, and coordinating across government stakeholders. We have 

also found that there are risks to implementing rules too quickly, 

especially when a rulemaking is controversial or technical.36 According to 

experts, developing regulations may be even more challenging when 

dealing with emerging issues and new technologies, such as automation 

within passenger and commercial vehicles (see discussion below). These 

technologies are developing rapidly, do not fit neatly within a single modal 

administration’s current regulatory framework, and may require additional 

coordination across administrations. One approach several DOT 

administrations, including FAA and PHMSA, are using to address these 

types of challenges is to rely on performance-based rules or consensus 

standards—as opposed to prescriptive rules that dictate a specific 

method for mitigating risk—for new regulations. According to FAA 

officials, such an approach offers the private sector the flexibility to 

address issues as they emerge, but also ensures safety is not 

compromised as new technologies are introduced.

 34GAO, Commercial Space: FAA Should Examine How to Appropriately Regulate Space 

Support Vehicles, GAO-17-100 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 25, 2016). FAA did not comment 

on the recommendation.

35GAO, Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes 

Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency, GAO-17-122 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 12, 2016). 

36GAO-17-122.

Expert opinion

“And the research under-pinning of policy [in 

rulemaking] is an absolute prerequisite to its 

implementation... there have to be sound 

economic cost-benefit studies that are not 

politically motivated.”

Source: GAO-17-478
Page 22 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Project delivery processes: In the current fiscal environment, in which 

federal resources are scarce, it is critical that the processes DOT uses to 

annually distribute billions of dollars in federal transportation funds for 

projects are clear, efficient, and effective. According to the experts we 

spoke with, DOT could reduce barriers and challenges facing state and 

local governments in the project delivery processes (e.g., funding, 

financing, and environmental review) without organizational changes. 

Experts believe that project delivery processes could be streamlined and 

made more consistent across modal administrations to achieve cost and 

time savings for state and local agencies.37 Further, experts suggested 

creating a position within OST to help states and local agencies navigate 

through the federal processes. We and the DOT OIG have bodies of work 

on potential improvements to DOT’s project delivery processes within the 

modal administrations, including ways to help address deficiencies in 

adherence to key discretionary grant practices, strengthen processes for 

overseeing grants, and improve guidance designed to ensure the process 

for selecting grant awardees is consistently applied.38 For example, we 

recommended in 2011 that FRA do more to document grant awards 

decisions.39

DOT officials acknowledged that there are differences in project delivery 

processes between modal administrations, but noted that this is often the 

result of requirements in statute or regulation. For example, the “Buy 

America” provisions for FTA, FRA, and FHWA are specific to each 

administration. Officials also noted several provisions in recent acts that 

require DOT to streamline some project delivery processes, including the 

previously discussed Build America Bureau, which is to provide 

assistance and communicate best practices and financing and funding 

opportunities to grant programs. Congress has passed numerous 

provisions to accelerate the delivery of federal-aid highway and transit 

 37Under the current surface transportation authorization, the FAST Act, there are 

provisions aimed at ensuring the timely delivery of transportation projects to improve 

efficiency in the development of projects, through the planning and environmental review 

process to project delivery. For example, allowing for one National Environmental Policy 

Act document, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with federal law, for 

multimodal projects. Pub. L. No.114-94,129 Stat. 1312 (2015).

38See appendix IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports.

39GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Recording Clearer Reasons for Awards Decisions Would 

Improve Otherwise Good Grantmaking Practices, GAO-11-283 (Washington D.C.: Mar. 

10, 2011). FRA addressed this recommendation by changing its guidance to include more 

explicit requirements for documenting the rationale behind funding selections.

Expert opinion

“So it's not a one-size fits all... there are 

places where uniformity makes sense. And 

maybe that should be elevated up outside of 

the modes. But in other places you need 

flexibility. And that should remain down within 

the modes so that they can be more 

responsive to their stakeholders and taking 

into consideration the impacts within that 

particular mode.”

Source: GAO-17-478
Page 23 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

projects since 2005 by streamlining the environmental review process for 

state and local agencies, most recently in the FAST Act.40 According to 

DOT officials, DOT is working to implement these changes and is 

updating its department-wide guidance for conducting environmental 

reviews. Lastly, the officials noted that DOT recently created a centralized 

office within OST to be a resource for the modal administrations and help 

accelerate the delivery of all DOT projects. However, DOT officials 

cautioned that there may be unintended consequences associated with 

implementing the suggestion from experts to create a new position within 

OST, including adding a layer of bureaucracy that could create 

inefficiencies.

Addressing emerging issues: The transportation world is quickly 

evolving and DOT has been and likely will continue to be challenged to 

proactively address emerging or anticipated issues to account for rapid 

technological advancements, climate change, and intermodal issues, 

among other concerns. Experts highlighted many of these challenges and 

were concerned that DOT was not prepared to address them. For 

example, experts frequently mentioned that DOT is falling behind the 

private sector’s need for research and specific regulations for 

autonomous vehicles and intelligent transportation systems. Experts also 

mentioned the importance of considering environment and climate 

change impacts of transportation in order to make wise decisions on how 

to move freight, for example. We and the DOT OIG have issued a number 

of reports on a range of emerging transportation issues that impact 

several DOT modal administrations, including the need for DOT to 

address new vehicle and aviation technologies—such as dealing with 

cybersecurity and privacy concerns—and the changing trends in how and 

where freight moves through our nation’s transportation system.41 For 

example, in 2014, we recommended that DOT include a written statement 

in its national freight strategic plan articulating the federal role in helping 

to mitigate the impacts of projected increases in local-freight congestion.42

 40We have ongoing work and DOT OIG recently issued a report examining several 

legislative changes to DOT’s project delivery processes. DOT, OIG, Vulnerabilities Exist in 

Implementing Initiatives Under MAP-21 Subtitle C to Accelerate Project Delivery, 

ST2017029 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2017).

41See appendix IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports.

42GAO, Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added 

Focus on Community Congestion Impacts, GAO-14-740 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 

2014). DOT has been working to address this recommendation and officials stated that it 

plans to release a final national freight strategic plan by the end of 2017.

Expert opinion

“...the rapid pace of technology is impacting 

our traditional planning processes, in that, 

when we look out 25 years, generally, we see 

old technology embedded at 25 years, and we 

see population growth, we see pollution 

growth... but it's hard [to plan] because the 

rules haven't kept up... and there's really no 

guidelines ...”

Source: GAO-17-478
Page 24 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

We have also reported on emerging issues that individual DOT modal 

administrations need to address, such as for PHMSA to ensure the safe 

transportation of domestically produced oil and gas, which has increased 

more than five times in recent years.43

DOT officials also told us that they believe that as an agency, DOT is 

having difficulty quickly identifying and reacting to emerging issues. While 

officials from some modal administrations highlighted efforts—such as 

performance plans and policy meetings—to regularly and strategically 

discuss new areas in need of DOT’s attention, officials noted that DOT is 

not always nimble enough to respond to emerging issues. Officials cited 

the rapid pace of technology development, data and coordination 

challenges, and the overall size and diversity of the transportation system 

as a few of the reasons DOT cannot always react quickly.

While DOT officials noted ongoing initiatives within its modal 

administrations intended to address challenges in the five areas identified 

by experts, they agreed that more could be done but did not identify plans 

to conduct a department-wide review in these areas. The current 

administration, however, recently released an Executive Order and the 

Budget Blueprint indicating that federal agencies, including DOT, are 

expected to continue to assess their ability to efficiently and effectively 

meet their missions.44 In addition, standards for internal control in the 

federal government highlight the need for federal agencies to periodically 

review, particularly as changes develop, whether their policies and 

procedures are relevant, effective, and address risks.45 We have noted 

that a review of this type should include an action plan to implement 

corrective measures.46 Such an evaluation could help DOT to leverage 

the success of initiatives within the modal administrations and define root 

causes and solutions, including identifying necessary steps, to address 

 43GAO-14-667. 

44Exec. Order No. 13781, Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for 

Reorganizing the Executive Branch, 82 Fed. Reg. 13959 (Mar. 13, 2017); and Office of 

Management and Budget, Exec. Office of the President, America First: A Budget Blueprint 

to Make America Great Again, Fiscal Year 2018 (2017). 

45GAO-14-704G.

46GAO, High-Risk Series: Key Actions to Make Progress Addressing High-Risk Issues, 

GAO-16-480R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2016) and Determining Performance and 

Accountability Challenges and High Risks, GAO-01-159SP (Washington, D.C.: November 

2000).
Page 25 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

the areas discussed and more effectively implement programs within and 

across its modal administrations.

As DOT considers potential reorganization plans to improve its efficiency, 

effectiveness, and accountability as required by the recent Executive 

Order, as well as how it will implement the administration’s Budget 

Blueprint, it will be important for DOT to take a holistic look at the 

department. Having considered the costs and benefits of restructuring 

how DOT is organized, experts told us that DOT can fulfill its many 

missions through its existing organizational structure. Yet, experts also 

recognize that DOT faces a growing number of challenges, including 

adapting quickly to new technological innovations, which they said will 

continue to blur the lines between the modes. DOT is undertaking a 

number of efforts to address these challenges within its modal 

administrations, but operational improvements could be achieved in 

several broad areas: (1) collaboration and coordination; (2) data quality 

and analytics; (3) regulation development; (4) project delivery processes; 

and (5) emerging issues. While DOT must work with many transportation 

stakeholders—including Congress, state and local governments, and the 

private sector—to address challenges in these areas, it is important that 

DOT take the lead in efforts to ensure a safe and efficient transportation 

system. Undertaking a department-wide review of the areas experts 

identified, particularly as they relate across the modal administrations, 

provides an opportunity for DOT to assess how it can more effectively 

achieve its missions and how best to position the department to 

proactively address the challenges it faces.

To leverage and build upon the ongoing efforts within individual DOT 

modal administrations and to address concerns raised by experts 

regarding collaboration and coordination, data quality and analytics, 

regulation development, project delivery processes, and addressing 

emerging issues, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation: (1) 

conduct a department-wide review of DOT’s current efforts to address 

these concerns; and (2) develop an action plan with specific steps to 

implement improvements, as identified, in these areas.

We provided a draft of this report to the DOT and OMB for their review 

and comment. We also provided copies of this report to the 18 experts 

who participated in our meeting in September 2016.

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Third-Party Views
Page 26 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

In written comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOT agreed with our 

recommendation and provided several recent examples of actions taken 

to improve the department’s operational performance, including the 

creation of a centralized permitting center, establishing a regulatoryreform task force, and hiring new employees in leadership positions with 

expertise in data analytics. DOT officials also indicated that following the 

conclusion of our audit work, several new planning efforts had begun in 

response to the recently released executive order, including two working 

groups intended to identify efficiencies in DOT’s mission as well as efforts 

to solicit employee feedback on ways to improve DOT’s efficiency and 

effectiveness. We did not have the opportunity to evaluate these 

initiatives. DOT and experts also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not comment on this report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested 

parties. In addition, this 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 V.

Susan Fleming

Director,

Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

This report addresses the following objectives: (1) what activities multiple 

Department of Transportation (DOT) modal administrations perform to 

fulfill their missions and how, if at all, DOT coordinates these activities, 

and (2) according to experts, what, if any, organizational changes or 

operational changes could enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively 

carry out its missions.

To identify activities performed by multiple DOT administrations and how 

those activities are coordinated, we reviewed DOT’s organizing statutes 

and amendments, and documentation on DOT’s overall mission and the 

missions of the nine modal administrations, including strategic plans, 

budget documents, and organizational manuals. We identified the nine 

DOT modal administrations to include in our work by reviewing DOT’s 

public website and relevant laws and statutes.1 We identified the missions 

of DOT as a whole and the modal administrations by reviewing mission 

statements and organizing statutes. In those cases in which we were not 

able to find the missions of an administration in statute, we identified the 

missions by reviewing their strategic plans or publicly available mission 

statements. We identified the activities conducted by each DOT 

administration and Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) by 

reviewing their organizational manuals, if available, and fiscal year 2016 

budget requests. We also used these sources to identify the program 

offices contained within each administration and the missions and 

activities of each of those offices.2 While we identified DOT activities, we 

did not evaluate how effective these activities are at fulfilling DOT’s 

missions. We identified areas of similarity within the list of activities by 

reviewing DOT’s strategic plan to select general outcomes related to 

DOT’s missions and objectives that more than one DOT administration

intends to achieve. We identified 19 of these activity areas, which broadly 

related to administrative functions, economic development and consumer 

protection, operating transportation systems, research, safety, and 

supporting infrastructure projects. Finally, we grouped each of the 

activities we identified into one of these functional categories. For 

example, as part of our analysis of documentation from multiple modal 

administrations websites and missions statements, we identified 

numerous activities related to developing rulemaking, guidance, and 

 1

We excluded the Surface Transportation Board because it became an independent 

federal agency in December 2015 and excluded the DOT Office of Inspector General 

(DOT OIG) because it does not perform transportation-related functions.

2

We excluded activities that did not directly and specifically relate to the office’s or 

administration’s mission statement.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

policy intended to improve the safety of the transportation system. We 

then noted that one of DOT’s mission priorities in its strategic plan is to 

develop transportation safety regulations. Based on this evidence, we 

determined this was an area in which multiple DOT administrations 

performed activities, which we named Developing Safety Regulations.

To collect expert views on organizational or other changes that could 

enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions, in 

September 2016, with the assistance of the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), we 

convened a one and a half day GAO meeting with 18 experts. 

Participants were identified and recommended by the National 

Academies and approved by us using several criteria, including 

experience with multiple modes of transportation and DOT 

administrations, and expertise in organizational change, among others. 

Experts included former DOT officials, representatives from local and 

state transportation agencies, private businesses that use our nation’s 

transportation system, and other experts in transportation policy and 

organizational change management (see table 2).

Table 2: Experts Who Participated in GAO’s Meeting on the Department of Transportation’s Organizational (DOT) Structure 

Name Relevant experience

Linda Bailey • Executive Director, National Association of City Transportation Officials

Robert Bertini • Director, Center for Urban Transportation Research; Professor, University of South Florida

• Deputy Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, DOT (2009-2011)

• Acting Director, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, DOT (2010-2011)

Carlos Braceras • Acting Director, Utah Department of Transportation

Stacey Gerard • Safety consultant

• Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety Officer, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 

DOT (2005-2008)

Jennifer Hall • General Counsel and Executive Vice President for Legal Affairs, American Trucking Associations

• Attorney, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of Representatives

Randy Iwasaki • Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (California)

Howard Jennings • Managing Director, Mobility Lab (Virginia)

Janet Kavinoky • Director of Federal and State Governmental Affairs, Vulcan Materials Company

K. Denise Rucker 

Krepp

• Owner, KDRKrepp Consulting

• Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, DOT (2009-2012)

Peter McLaughlin • Commissioner, Hennepin County (Minnesota)

Beryl Radin • Professor, Georgetown Public Policy Institute of Georgetown University
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Name Relevant experience

Joyce Rose • Principal Consultant, WSP/Parsons Brinkerhoff

• President/Chief Executive Officer, Operation Lifesaver, Inc.

• Professional Staff, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of Representatives and 

Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Appropriations 

Committee, U.S. Senate

Jeffrey Runge • Executive Director, National Collaborative for Bio-Preparedness at the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill

• Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT (2001-2005)

• Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs (2007-2008) and Chief Medical Officer (2005-2007), U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

Robert E. Skinner, Jr. 

(moderator)

• Former Executive Director, Transportation Research Board

C. Michael Walton • Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

• Founding member and former Chair of the Board of Directors, Intelligent Transportation Society of 

America

Sarah Wells • Executive Director, Transportation Association of Canada

John Wetzel • Vice President for Congressional affairs, Association of American Railroads

Frederick “Bud” Wright • Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

• Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, Federal Highway Administration, DOT (2001-2008)

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-478.

We asked the expert meeting participants to comment on DOT’s 

organizational structure and potential areas for improvement in the six 

functional categories in which DOT performs activities identified in 

objective 1: administrative functions, economic development and 

consumer protection, operating transportation systems, research, safety, 

and supporting infrastructure projects. Following the meeting, two 

analysts conducted a content analysis of the expert meeting transcript 

using NVivo software to identify the areas for improvement that were 

discussed most frequently during the expert meeting.3 Each analyst 

independently reviewed one half of the transcript to identify instances 

where the areas were discussed. Once each analyst had completed 

going through their respective sections, the other analyst verified the 

coding of the other analyst. If there was a disagreement, the analysts 

discussed their assessment and would come to a final determination on 

the categorization. Based on the results of our content analysis, we 

determined 15 areas for improvement were the most frequently 

 3

NVivo is a qualitative data analysis software system that allows organization and analysis 

of information from a variety of sources including complex nonnumeric or unstructured 

data.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

discussed. The 15 areas were used to develop a brief follow-up 

questionnaire for the experts to verify what was discussed at the meeting. 

We conducted pretests with two of the experts before emailing the 

finalized PDF questionnaire form to all 18 experts who attended the 

meeting. We received 17 out of 18 responses from our experts (94 

percent response rate). Additionally, we developed a list of follow-up 

questions for DOT officials from OST and all nine modal administrations, 

similar to the questions we asked experts in the questionnaire. We 

reviewed the responses received from experts and DOT officials to 

determine which of the 15 areas were considered to be the most 

important to address or as having the biggest potential payoff in helping 

DOT more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions. Based on this 

analysis, we identified five areas to discuss in greater detail in our 

report—(1) collaboration and coordination; (2) data quality and analytics; 

(3) regulation development; (4) project delivery processes; and (5) 

addressing emerging issues.4 The views represented by the experts from 

whom we gathered information are not generalizable to those of all 

experts on DOT’s organizational structure and operations; however, we 

were able to secure the participation of a diverse, highly qualified group of 

experts and believe their views provide a balanced and informed 

perspective on the topics discussed.

In addition, we reviewed GAO reports issued in the past five years and 

DOT OIG reports that discussed the areas for improvement experts 

identified, many of which included recommendations for DOT. We 

identified the most relevant prior GAO work in the 5 areas identified by 

experts and DOT officials.

To address both of our objectives, we interviewed DOT officials from OST 

and all nine modal administrations. To gather background information, we 

also interviewed additional stakeholders with a range of transportation 

experience including former DOT officials, representatives from state and 

local transportation agencies, transportation stakeholders from consulting 

firms, non-profits and think tanks, as well as academics in the field of 

organizational change (see table 3).

 4

Additional areas identified by experts included: crosscutting councils; data standards and 

accessibility; DOT workforce development; federal policy role; leadership within DOT; 

livability; performance goals; and research prioritization. For the purposes of our report, 

we combined three similar areas into collaboration and coordination—interagency 

collaboration, modal administration collaboration, and state and local collaboration.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 3: Transportation and Other Stakeholders Interviewed

Name Relevant Experience

Alex Bond • Director, Center for Transportation Leadership, Eno Center for Transportation

Grace Crunican • General Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (California)

• Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

(1993-1996)

Jeff Davis • Senior Fellow, Eno Center for Transportation

Mortimer Downey • President, Mort Downey Consulting, LLC

• Deputy Secretary, DOT (1993-2001)

Tyler Duvall • Partner, McKinsey & Co.

• Acting Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, DOT (2006)

Emil Frankel • Senior Fellow, Eno Center for Transportation

Deborah Hersman • President & Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

• Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board (2009-2014)

John Kamensky • Senior Fellow, IBM Center for the Business of Government

Don Kettl • Professor and Former Dean, University of Maryland School of Public Policy

Geraldine Knatz • Professor, Practice of Policy and Engineering, University of Southern California

• Managing Director, Port of Los Angeles (2006-2014)

Ray LaHood • Policy Advisor, DLA Piper

• Secretary of Transportation, DOT (2009-2013)

Admiral James Loy • Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (1998-2002)

• Deputy Secretary, DHS (2003-2005)

Donna McLean • President, Donna McLean Associates, LLC

• Board Member, Amtrak (2006-2011)

• Assistant Secretary, Budget and Programs, DOT (2001-2006)

John Porcari • President of U.S. Advisory Services, WSP/Parsons Brinkerhoff

• Deputy Secretary, DOT (2009-2013)

Robert Puentes • President, Eno Center for Transportation

Hal Rainey • Professor, Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs, 

University of Georgia

Jack Shenendorf • Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP

• Chief of Staff, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of Representatives

Polly Trottenberg • Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation

• Under Secretary for Policy, DOT (2012-2013)

Stephen Van Beek • Director and Head of North American Aviation, Steer Davies Gleave

• Associate Deputy Secretary and Director, Office of Intermodalism, Office of the Secretary, DOT (1999)

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 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.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 33 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

We identified 19 areas in which more than one administration within the 

United States Department of Transportation (DOT) performs activities 

(see table 1). Broadly, these areas fall into six functional categories: 

administrative, economic development and consumer protection, 

operating transportation systems, research, safety, and supporting 

infrastructure projects. These areas outline the primary areas of activities 

that DOT undertakes to achieve its intended outcomes; the areas are not 

a comprehensive list of every area in which DOT performs activities. We 

identified the DOT administrations that perform activities in these areas, 

and tables 4 to 22 show examples of these activities.

One of the categories we identified, as shown in table 4, is related to 

conducting administrative activities:

Table 4: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Administrative Activities Area

Administrative Activities: Providing internal services that support DOT’s operations, such as information technology, financial and 

budgeting support, and human resources

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Provides internal services supporting agency operations, including information technology, 

financial management, human capital, external relations, legal services, organizational 

management, and internal policy setting. 

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Maritime Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 34 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Three of the categories we identified, as shown in tables 5 to 7, are 

related to economic development and consumer protection:

Table 5: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Developing Economic and Consumer Regulation Area

Developing Economic and Consumer Regulation: Developing rulemakings, guidance and policies to regulate transportationrelated economic activity, protect U.S. industries, or to protect consumers

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Develops air travel consumer and aviation economic licensing regulations, and develops 

regulations for the Essential Air Services and Small Community Air Service Development 

Program, which together provide subsidies to airlines for providing service at small airports. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Develops fuel economy regulations for passenger cars and light trucks through the Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy program, and for medium and heavy trucks. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Table 6: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Economic Development Assistance Area

Economic Development Assistance: Providing financial support to transportation operators in order to improve their economic 

competitiveness

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Operates the Essential Air Services and Small Community Air Service Development 

programs, which together provide subsidies to airlines for providing service at small airports.

Federal Aviation Administration Manages the Aviation Insurance Program, which provides insurance to air carriers that cannot 

obtain comparable insurance in the private market.

Federal Transit Administration Provides capital, planning and operating assistance grants to states and other jurisdictions in 

order to support public transportation in rural communities. 

Maritime Administration Manages the federal ship financing program, which provides loan guarantees for the purpose 

of promoting the growth and modernization of the U.S. Merchant Marine and U.S. shipyards. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 35 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 7: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Oversight and Enforcement of Economic and Consumer 

Regulation Area

Oversight and Enforcement of Economic and Consumer Regulation: Providing oversight and enforcement of regulations 

intended to protect U.S. industries or consumers, and certifying economic operating authority for transportation system operators

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Reviews and approves applications for airline economic operating authority, and enforces 

airline consumer protection regulations, such as those regarding damaged or lost baggage.

Federal Aviation Administration Reviews applications for airport authorities wishing to issue passenger facility charges used to 

fund airport improvements.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Operates the Household Goods Enforcement Program, which is intended to protect 

consumers from unscrupulous household goods movers.

Federal Railroad Administration Reviews and approves state railroad development plans, which show the state’s plan for 

freight and passenger rail infrastructure and service development.

Maritime Administration Enforces cargo preference laws requiring federally funded projects to use U.S.-flagged 

vessels.

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Enforces federal fuel economy standards for automakers, and enforces odometer fraud 

regulations designed to protect consumers from fraudulent auto sales.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

One of the categories we identified, as shown in table 8, is related to 

operating transportation systems:

Table 8: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Operating Transportation Systems Area

Operating Transportation Systems: Operating, or providing for the operation of, transportation systems

Administration Examples of activities performed

Federal Aviation Administration Operates the U.S. air traffic control system, including providing for system operation, 

maintenance, and capital investment.

Maritime Administration Manages the U.S. Strategic Sealift and National Defense Reserve Fleet programs, which 

provide for emergency shipping capability during wartime and other national emergencies, 

and operates the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, which is a service academy that trains 

and certifies mariners.

St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation

Operates the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, including providing for system and 

lock operation, maintenance, and capital investment. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Note: A number of other DOT administrations also provide operating subsidies to transportation 

systems operated by other entities. We limited this area to those administrations that are directly 

responsible for the operation of transportation systems and thus did not include those administrations 

in this area.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 36 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Three of the categories we identified, as shown in tables 9 to 11, are 

related to research:

Table 9: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Data Collection and Oversight Area

Data Collection and Oversight: Collecting transportation-related data and providing oversight of data collection efforts

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Operates the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which collects and analyzes data on the 

U.S. transportation system, including aviation traffic and airline financial conditions, multimodal freight movements, and maritime ferry operations. 

Federal Aviation Administration Collects, manages, and analyzes data on the U.S. airspace system and maintains the Civil 

Aviation Registry, which tracks U.S.-registered aircraft and the aviation workforce. 

Federal Highway Administration Collects safety data on federal-aid highways, including that required by the National Bridge 

and Tunnel Inspection Standards programs, which require states to perform safety inspections 

on bridges and tunnels and report results. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Collects and maintains motor carrier safety data, and maintains a registry of motor carriers 

and shippers subject to federal motor carrier safety regulations and hazardous materials 

shipper regulations. 

Federal Transit Administration Maintains the National Transit Database, which collects data on public transit operators,

including financial performance, safety, ridership, operating statistics, and asset conditions. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Operates the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, which collects and analyzes motor 

vehicle traffic crash and safety data. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Collects incident and operations data for pipelines, and the transportation of hazardous 

materials. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 37 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 10: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Research Technical Assistance Area

Research Technical Assistance: Providing technical assistance regarding DOT research programs and providing deployment 

support to transportation stakeholders for new technologies

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of Transportation Manages pilot programs, and provides deployment assistance for transportation 

technologies such as intelligent transportation systems.

Federal Aviation Administration Provides technical assistance to industry stakeholders in the deployment and 

implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System program, which is 

intended to modernize U.S. air traffic control and communications systems 

Federal Highway Administration Provides technology deployment technical assistance for highway stakeholders in a number 

of areas, including intelligent transportation systems and emergency management. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Manages motor carrier vehicle safety technology pilot programs. 

Federal Railroad Administration Provides technology development technical assistance for the railroad industry including for 

Positive Train Control technologies. 

Federal Transit Administration Performs technical assistance for transit operators, states, local jurisdictions, and other 

transit stakeholders in deploying, demonstrating, and evaluating new public transit 

technologies.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Table 11: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Sponsor and Conduct Research Area

Sponsor and Conduct Research: Directly operating research facilities, sponsoring research by providing grants, or other means of 

support for research directly or through research facilities

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Manages the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, which conducts transportation 

research for DOT administrations and other entities, and coordinates research activities at 

each DOT administration through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology (OST-R).

Federal Aviation Administration Conducts research and provides grants to research institutions on a number of aviation topics, 

including human factors such as operator fatigue, airport technology, commercial space 

technology, and aviation meteorology.

Federal Highway Administration Manages the Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, which conducts research on 

highway topics, including driver and pedestrian safety, congestion management, and highway 

construction.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Provides grants to research institutions to perform research on motor carrier safety topics, 

such as driver fatigue, commercial driver licensing requirements, and maintenance. 

Federal Railroad Administration Conducts research, and provides grants to research institutions on a number of railroad topics, 

such as grade crossing safety, train control mechanisms, and human factors. 

Federal Transit Administration Provides grants to research institutions to perform public transit research on topics, including 

urban development, service quality, asset and infrastructure maintenance, environmental 

impact, and transit safety. 
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 38 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Administration Examples of activities performed

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Manages the Vehicle Research and Testing Center, which conducts safety testing and other 

research on motor vehicles and equipment, and conducts other behavioral safety research 

directly and by contract with research institutions. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Provides grants to research institutions to perform research on pipeline safety and the 

transportation of hazardous materials. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Six of the categories we identified, as shown in tables 12 to 17, are 

related to safety:

Table 12: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Developing Safety Regulations Area

Developing Safety Regulations: Developing rulemakings, guidance, and policies intended to improve the safety of the transportation 

system

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Oversees the development of safety regulations in all of the modal administrations.

Federal Aviation Administration Develops the Federal Aviation Regulations which cover airports, air carriers, air traffic control, 

the aviation workforce, and medical standards, among other things.

Federal Highway Administration Develops highway-related regulations, rulemakings and guidance, such as construction 

standards and requirements for safety performance metrics, for state and local transportation 

agencies. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Develops the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which include medical certification, 

commercial driving license certification, and operating requirements.

Federal Railroad Administration Develops regulations to improve railroad safety, including those related to railroad operations, 

infrastructure, and emergency communications.

Federal Transit Administration Develops regulations on the management and maintenance of public transit assets, including 

regulations for safety management plans at public transit providers and the National Transit 

Asset Management System.

Maritime Administration Participates in international maritime safety standard setting through the International Maritime 

Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations that governs international shipping, 

and provides technical assistance to the U.S. Coast Guard in developing regulations to 

implement those standards. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Develops the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other regulations, which describe 

manufacturer requirements for new motor vehicles and equipment, among other things. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Develops the Federal pipeline safety regulations, which govern the construction and operation 

of pipelines, and the Federal hazardous materials regulations, which govern the transportation 

of hazardous materials.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 39 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 13: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the International Safety Activities Area

International Safety Activities: Coordinating safety standards, regulations, and enforcement with other countries

Administration Examples of activities performed

Federal Aviation Administration Coordinates international aviation safety issues with the International Civil Aviation 

Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations that governs civil aviation. 

Federal Highway Administration Acts as the United States’ representative to the World Road Association, an intergovernmental 

organization intended to improve information sharing on highway transportation topics, such as 

safety. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Provides technical assistance to Canada and Mexico to develop consistent regulations, driver 

licensing, inspection procedures, and safety programs.

Federal Railroad Administration Coordinates with foreign governments and international entities to promote international rail 

safety and standards.

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Coordinates DOT activities at the United Nations World Forum for the Harmonization of 

Vehicle Regulations, which develops international standards for vehicle safety. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Participates in international forums on hazardous materials regulations, such as the United 

Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the International 

Maritime Organization. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Table 14: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Safety Certification, Continuing Oversight, and Enforcement 

Area

Safety Certification, Continuing Oversight, and Enforcement: Ensuring compliance with federal transportation laws and 

regulations by providing direct oversight of operators, conducting legal enforcement actions, and providing safety certification of 

operators

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Conducts civil penalty hearings regarding improper shipment of hazardous materials, 

inspections, and maintenance, and coordinates criminal hearings.

Federal Aviation Administration Enforces aviation safety regulations for operators, manufacturers, and other industry 

stakeholders, and provides safety certification for the aviation workforce and airspace 

systems.

Federal Highway Administration Administers the National Bridge and Tunnel Inspection Program, which enforces compliance 

with the national bridge and tunnel inspection standards, and enforces federal size and weight 

standards for commercial vehicles. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Conducts oversight and enforcement of motor carriers by performing on-site inspections, 

roadside inspections, off-site reviews, and safety audits of new motor carriers.

Federal Railroad Administration Monitors and enforces industry compliance with railroad regulations by conducting inspections 

of railroad operators, infrastructure, and equipment, and provides safety certification of 

railroad systems and infrastructure. 

Federal Transit Administration Provides oversight of transit operators’ inspection and auditing mechanisms, reviews and 

approves required state-level public transit safety oversight systems, and provides direct 

safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritya
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 40 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Administration Examples of activities performed

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Enforces vehicle safety regulations through testing of new vehicles and equipment, and the 

identification and monitoring of safety defect and noncompliance recalls, and approves state 

highway safety plans. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Enforces pipeline safety regulations through pipeline inspections, evaluations of pipeline 

integrity, and compliance reviews, and enforces hazardous materials safety regulations 

through permitting, inspections, and registrations.

St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation

Performs safety inspections of foreign vessels operating on the U.S. portion of the St. 

Lawrence Seaway. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

a

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority provides bus and rail public transportation 

services to the greater Washington, D.C., area. In October 2015, the Secretary of Transportation 

directed the Federal Transit Administration to assume temporary direct safety oversight of 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s rail operations. This was the first time that DOT has 

used the direct oversight authority granted to the Federal Transit Administration under the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012.

Table 15: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Safety Grant Programs Area

Safety Grant Programs: Providing funds to other entities such as states or local jurisdictions to complete projects intended to 

improve the safety of the transportation system

Administration Examples of activities performed

Federal Aviation Administration Administers the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants for, among other things, 

safety-specific improvements to airports. 

Federal Railroad Administration Administers grants to organizations that promote railroad safety including those that promote 

safety at highway-rail grade crossings. 

Federal Highway Administration Administers the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which provides funding to states to 

address highway safety problems such as hazardous road features. 

Federal Transit Administration Administers grants to states for development and operation of oversight programs for rail 

transit systems. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Administers the Highway Safety Grant Program, which provides grants to states for highway 

safety programs including those intended to counteract impaired and distracted driving.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Administers grants to states including Pipeline Safety Grants, which support state pipeline 

safety enforcement activities, and the Hazardous Materials Grants Program, which support 

state training and emergency preparedness activities.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 41 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 16: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Safety Event Response Area

Safety Event Response: Responding to safety events in the transportation sector, including assisting other entities in providing 

incident response, and investigating the causes of safety events

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Manages the Crisis Management Center, which monitors transportation crises and hosts a 

DOT emergency response team; oversees DOT technical support to the National 

Transportation Safety Board.

Federal Aviation Administration Investigates aircraft incidents and accidents, and supports investigations conducted by the 

National Transportation Safety Board.

Federal Railroad Administration Monitors and investigates railroad accidents, safety events, and incidents to determine 

probable cause and identify related areas of regulatory non-compliance.

Federal Transit Administration Performs investigations of certain public transportation accidents, and supports investigations 

conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Participates on the National Response Team, which coordinates oversight of oil and 

hazardous substance pollution prevention requirements and provides training to emergency 

responders.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Table 17: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Safety Technical Assistance Area

Safety Technical Assistance: Providing assistance to other entities such as states, local jurisdictions, or operators related to safety 

and compliance with federal safety regulations

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Develops and conducts safety training programs in a number of areas, such as safety 

management, through the Transportation Safety Institute.

Federal Aviation Administration Conducts safety-related outreach to aviation industry stakeholders in a number of areas, 

including airport planning, operations, and hazardous materials.

Federal Highway Administration Offers road safety training and peer information exchange programs to states and local 

jurisdictions.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Provides outreach, cooperation, and technical assistance to states, local officials, and other 

industry stakeholders regarding motor carrier safety programs.

Federal Railroad Administration Provides training and certification to safety inspectors employed by states to enforce federal 

railroad regulations. 

Federal Transit Administration Develops safety assistance, guidance, demonstrations, and training programs for public transit 

operators and stakeholders.

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Provides technical support to states in developing, implementing, and evaluating safety 

programs and plans.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Provides technical support to end users for implementing and evaluating safety and security 

programs.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 42 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Five of the categories we identified, as shown in tables 18 to 22, are 

related to supporting infrastructure projects:

Table 18: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Environmental Impact Mitigation Area

Environmental Impact Mitigation: Providing funding or direct action to mitigate the impact on the environment of transportation 

activities

Administration Examples of activities performed

Federal Aviation Administration Develops air traffic routing procedures to reduce the impact of airport noise, and directs funds 

from the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants to airports for development 

projects to insulate homes located near airports from noise. 

Federal Highway Administration Provides funding for environmental mitigation related to highway projects.

Federal Transit Administration Develops environmental management training for public transit system operators. 

Maritime Administration Disposes of surplus merchant ships by contracting with ship dismantling and recycling firms.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Table 19: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Project Environmental Reviews Area

Project Environmental Reviews: Reviewing and approving environmental reviews required for projects that receive assistance from 

DOT project delivery programs

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Manages required environmental reviews for projects receiving agency assistance, including 

reviewing documentation and granting approvals. 

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Maritime Administration

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 43 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 20: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Project Grant and Credit Programs Area

Project Grant Programs: Providing grants, formula funding, and credit financing to infrastructure projects administered by other 

entities such as states or local jurisdictions

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Manages the Build America Bureau, which administers DOT credit programs, including the 

Railroad Relocation and Improvement Financing program, the Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act program, and the allocation of Private Activity Bonds. 

Federal Aviation Administration Administers aviation-related grant programs, such as the Airport Improvement Program and 

the Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grants program. 

Federal Highway Administration Administers the Federal-aid highway program and other highway grant programs, such as the 

Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives grant program.

Federal Railroad Administration Administers railroad grant programs, including the Amtrak and Alaska Railroad capital grants 

programs and the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.

Federal Transit Administration Administers public transit grant programs, including the Urbanized Area Formula Grant 

program, the Capital Investment Grant program, and the Metropolitan Planning Grants

program.

Maritime Administration Administers maritime grant programs, including the Marine Highway Program and the Small 

Shipyard Grant Program.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.

Table 21: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Project Oversight Area

Project Oversight: Providing oversight of participants in DOT programs to ensure compliance with federal laws and program rules, 

policies, and best practices

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Oversees participants in agency programs and recipients of agency assistance for compliance 

with program rules and regulations, as well as federal laws and policies, including Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disability Act, the Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise program, and the Equal Employment Opportunity program.

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Maritime Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix II: Activities Performed by the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Administrations

Page 44 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Table 22: Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Activities in the Project Technical Assistance Area

Project Technical Assistance: Providing assistance to participants in DOT project delivery programs, such as help with applications, 

program rules and regulations, project design, and project funding

Administration Examples of activities performed

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Provides technical assistance and outreach for DOT programs, including those conducted by 

the Build America Bureau, which provides support for and selects recipients of certain DOT 

grant and credit programs.

Federal Aviation Administration Provides technical assistance to airports and aviation authorities on participating in agency 

assistance programs. 

Federal Highway Administration Provides technical assistance to states and local jurisdictions for highway projects, including 

planning, design, asset management, finance, and cost estimating. 

Federal Railroad Administration Provides technical assistance to rail industry stakeholders on railroad grant programs

Federal Transit Administration Provides technical assistance to state and local jurisdictions on agency project delivery 

programs and the required metropolitan transportation planning process.

Maritime Administration Provides expertise on financing, operations, and infrastructure for port infrastructure and 

intermodal freight movement projects.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT organizational manuals, budget requests, and websites. | GAO-17-478.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 45 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Transportation
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 46 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation
Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Page 47 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

GAO and the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General 

(DOT OIG) have bodies of work related to topics the experts we spoke 

with most frequently cited as being important for DOT to address. Below 

are reports issued by GAO and DOT OIG in each of these areas: (1) 

collaboration and coordination; (2) data quality and analytics; (3) project 

delivery processes; (4) regulation development; and (5) addressing 

emerging issues.

GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency. 

GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.

GAO. Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs a More Comprehensive Approach to 

Address Cybersecurity as Agency Transitions to NextGen. GAO -15-370. 

Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015.

GAO. Drug-Impaired Driving: Additional Support Needed for Public 

Awareness Initiatives. GAO-15-293. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 

2015.

GAO. Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to 

Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups. GAO-14-220. Washington, 

D.C.: February 14, 2014.

GAO. Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: 

September 27, 2012.

GAO. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Coordination 

Efforts Could be Further Strengthened. GAO-12-647. Washington, D.C.: 

June 20, 2012.

GAO. Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on 

Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety. 

GAO-12-388. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012.

GAO. Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration 

and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage 

Congestion. GAO-12-308. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2012.

Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO 

and Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Collaboration and 

Coordination
Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Page 48 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

OIG, DOT. FHWA Needs to Strengthen Its Oversight of State 

Transportation Improvement Programs. ST2017019. Washington, D.C.: 

January 5, 2017.

OIG, DOT. Insufficient Guidance, Oversight, and Cooperation Hinder 

PHMSA’s Full Implementation of Mandates and Recommendations. ST2017-002. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2016.

OIG, DOT. FAA Lacks a Clear Process for Identifying and Coordinating 

NextGen Long-Term Research and Development. AV-2016-094. 

Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2016.

OIG, DOT. Improvements Needed in FMCSA’s Plan for Inspecting Buses 

at the United States-Mexico Border. MH-2014-007. Washington, D.C.: 

November 26, 2013.

GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency. 

GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.

GAO. Motor Carriers: Better Information Needed to Assess Effectiveness 

and Efficiency of Safety Interventions. GAO-17-49. Washington, D.C.: 

October 27, 2016.

GAO. West Coast Ports: Better Supply Chain Information Could Improve 

DOT’s Freight Efforts. GAO-17-23. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2016.

GAO. Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit 

from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts. GAO-14-740. 

Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2014.

GAO. Federal Motor Carrier Safety: Modifying the Compliance, Safety, 

Accountability Program Would Improve the Ability to Identify High Risk 

Carriers. GAO-14-114. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2014.

GAO. Cargo Tank Trucks: Improved Incident Data and Regulatory 

Analysis Would Better Inform Decisions about Safety Risks. GAO-13-721. 

Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2013.

GAO. Pipeline Safety: Better Data and Guidance Needed to Improve 

Pipeline Operator Incident Response. GAO-13-168. Washington, D.C.: 

January 23, 2013.

Data Quality and 

Analytics
Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Page 49 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

GAO. Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on 

Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety.

GAO-12-388. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012.

GAO. Motor Carrier Safety: New Applicant Reviews Should Expand to 

Identify Freight Carriers Evading Detection. GAO-12-364. Washington, 

D.C.: March 22, 2012.

OIG, DOT. FRA’s Oversight of Hazardous Materials Shipments Lacks 

Comprehensive Risk Evaluation and Focus on Deterrence. ST-2016-020. 

Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2016.

OIG, DOT. Inadequate Data and Analysis Undermine NHTSA’s Efforts to 

Identify and Investigate Vehicle Safety Concerns. ST-2015-063. 

Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2015.

OIG, DOT. Program and Data Limitations Impede the Effectiveness of 

FAA’s Hazardous Materials Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program. AV2015-034. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2015.

GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency. 

GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.

GAO. Commercial Space: FAA Should Examine How to Appropriately 

Regulate Space Support Vehicles. GAO-17-100. Washington, D.C.: 

November 25, 2016.

GAO. Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Launch 

Industry Developments Present Multiple Challenges. GAO-15-706. 

Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2015.

GAO. Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is 

Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed 

to Improve Pipeline Safety. GAO-14-667. Washington, D.C.: August 21, 

2014.

GAO. Cargo Tank Trucks: Improved Incident Data and Regulatory 

Analysis Would Better Inform Decisions about Safety Risks. GAO-13-721. 

Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2013.

Regulation 

Development
Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Page 50 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

GAO. Aviation Rulemaking: Further Reform Is Needed to Address Longstanding Problems. GAO-01-821. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.

OIG, DOT. Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2017. PT-2017-

007. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2016.

OIG, DOT. Insufficient Guidance, Oversight, and Cooperation Hinder 

PHMSA’s Full Implementation of Mandates and Recommendations. ST2017-002. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2016.

GAO. DOT Discretionary Grants: Problems with Hurricane Sandy Transit 

Grant Selection Process Highlight the Need for Additional Accountability. 

GAO-17-20. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2016.

GAO. Rail Grant Oversight: Greater Adherence to Leading Practices 

Needed to Improve Grants Management. GAO-16-544. Washington, 

D.C.: May 26, 2016.

GAO. Public Transit: Updated Guidance and Expanded Federal Authority 

Could Facilitate Bus Procurement. GAO-15-676. Washington, D.C.: 

September 10, 2015.

GAO. Intercity Passenger Rail: Recording Clearer Reasons for Awards 

Decisions Would Improve Otherwise Good Grantmaking Practices. 

GAO-11-283. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2011.

OIG, DOT. Vulnerabilities Exist in Implementing Initiatives Under MAP-21 

Subtitle C to Accelerate Project Delivery. ST2017029. Washington, D.C.: 

March 6, 2017.

OIG, DOT. Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2017. PT-2017-

007. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2016.

OIG, DOT. FHWA Does Not Effectively Ensure States Account for 

Preliminary Engineering Costs and Reimburse Funds as Required. ST2016-095. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2016.

OIG, DOT. FTA Monitored Grantees’ Corrective Actions, but Lacks Policy 

and Guidance to Oversee Grantees with Restricted Access to Federal 

Funds. ST-2016-058. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2016.

Project Delivery 

Processes
Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Page 51 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

OIG, DOT. Weak Internal Controls for Collecting Delinquent Debt Put 

Millions of DOT Dollars at Risk. FI-2015-065. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 

2015.

GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency. 

GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.

GAO. West Coast Ports: Better Supply Chain Information Could Improve 

DOT’s Freight Efforts. GAO-17-23. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2016.

GAO. Vehicle Cybersecurity: DOT and Industry Have Efforts Under Way, 

but DOT Needs to Define Its Role in Responding to a Real-world Attack. 

GAO-16-350. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2016.

GAO. Vehicle Safety: Enhanced Project Management of New Information 

Technology Could Help Improve NHTSA’s Oversight of Safety Defects. 

GAO-16-312. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2016.

GAO. Unmanned Aerial Systems: FAA Continues Progress toward 

Integration into the National Airspace. GAO-15-610. Washington, D.C.: 

July 16, 2015.

GAO. Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs a More Comprehensive Approach to 

Address Cybersecurity as Agency Transitions to Next Gen. GAO-15-370. 

Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015.

GAO. Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit 

from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts. GAO-14-740. 

Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2014.

GAO. Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is 

Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed 

to Improve Pipeline Safety. GAO-14-667. Washington, D.C.: August 21, 

2014.

GAO. Rail Safety: Improved Human Capital Planning Could Address 

Emerging Safety Oversight Challenges. GAO-14-85. Washington, D.C.: 

December 9, 2013.

GAO. Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Technologies Expected to Offer Safety Benefits, but a Variety of 

Addressing Emerging 

Issues
Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Inspector General

Page 52 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Deployment Challenges Exist. GAO-14-13. Washington, D.C.: November 

1, 2013.

GAO. Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration 

and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage 

Congestion. GAO-12-308. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2012.

OIG, DOT. FAA Lacks a Risk-Based Oversight Process for Civil 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems. AV-2017-018. Washington, D.C.: December 

1, 2016.

OIG, DOT. Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2017. PT-2017-

007. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2016.

OIG, DOT. DOT Cybersecurity Incident Handling and Reporting is 

Ineffective and Incomplete. FI-2017-001. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 

2016.

OIG, DOT. FAA Faces Significant Barriers to Safely Integrate Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems Into the National Airspace System. AV-2014-061. 

Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2014.
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-17-478 Department of Transportation

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant 

Director), Matthew Cook (Analyst in Charge), Paul Aussendorf, Dan 

Bertoni, Melissa Bodeau, Steve Cohen, Cathy Colwell, Alex Fedell, Cam 

Flores, Farrah Graham, Brandon Haller, Phil Herr, Catherine Kim, 

Hannah Laufe, Heather MacLeod, Ned Malone, Sara Ann Moessbauer, 

Josh Ormond, Carl Ramirez, Alex Severn, Sharon Silas, Sarah Veale, 

Sara Vermillion, and Susan Zimmerman made significant contributions to 

this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100851)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.