GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

January 16, 2013 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ranking Member 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman 

The Honorable David Vitter 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Highway Trust Fund Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was established to finance the construction of the Interstate 

Highway System. This system, built in partnership with state and local governments over more 

than 50 years, has become central to transportation in the United States. During this same 

time period, the federal role in surface transportation programs expanded to include a broader 

mission. Surface transportation programs have grown in number and complexity, and while 

most federal surface transportation funds remain dedicated to highway infrastructure and 

administered by the states, many of these programs now serve additional transportation, 

environmental, and societal purposes. 

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted, authorizing a total of $244.1 billion for highways, 

highway safety, and public transportation.1

 The HTF serves as the funding source for most 

of the authorized programs.2

 In addition to authorizing funds for construction and 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005). 

2

An authorization act establishes or continues federal programs or agencies. SAFETEA-LU provided contract 

authority over the authorization period for most programs funded from the HTF. Contract authority is a form of 

budget authority that permits obligations to be incurred in advance of appropriations. Contract authority is 

unfunded, and a subsequent appropriation is needed to liquidate or pay the obligations. 
Page 2 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

maintenance of highways and bridges, SAFETEA-LU specified additional purposes for 

which funding must or may be used, including, but not limited to, safety; metropolitan and 

statewide transportation planning; transit; and transportation enhancement activities, such 

as pedestrian and bicycle facilities and environmental mitigation of highway impacts on 

wetlands and wildlife. Within the Department of Transportation (DOT), the administrations 

responsible for the programs funded from the HTF are the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

After SAFETEA-LU expired at the end of fiscal year 2009, it was extended several times 

until the enactment of the current surface transportation authorization, the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).3

 Although federal surface transportation programs 

were reauthorized for 2 fiscal years under MAP-21, the future of the HTF remains uncertain. 

The HTF balance was about 30 percent lower at the end of fiscal year 2012 than it was at 

the beginning of the fiscal year. Current Congressional Budget Office projections show that 

by fiscal year 2015, absent any legislative changes, the HTF will be exhausted.4

 We have 

placed federal surface transportation funding on our High Risk List because of erosion of 

HTF revenues while demands increase to repair and upgrade the system.5

MAP-21 mandated that we report on activities funded from the HTF including for purposes 

other than construction or maintenance of highways and bridges in fiscal years 2009 

through 2011, including information similar to the information in our 2009 report on HTF 

expenditures.6

 To meet the mandated reporting date on December 3, 2012, we provided 

your offices with preliminary information. This report expands upon that letter with more 

specific information about total authorizations from the HTF for fiscal years 2009 through 

2011, authorizations and obligations by DOT administration, and the types of projects 

funded from the HTF. To meet this reporting objective, we obtained data from DOT on 

amounts obligated from the HTF for all purposes during fiscal years 2009 through 2011 from 

each DOT administration that could directly obligate funds from the HTF.7

 For FHWA, we 

categorized the data to report obligations from the HTF in three broad categories—highway 

and bridge construction and maintenance; transportation enhancements; and other 

purposes (such as safety, debt service and planning activities).8

 For FTA, NHTSA, and 

FMCSA, we analyzed data on obligations for all programs funded from the HTF during the 3 

year period. Based on interviews with officials at each administration and information from 

DOT about steps taken to ensure the reliability of its data, we determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We did not include in our analysis 

obligations by these DOT administrations that were directly funded from the General Fund of 

 

3

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). MAP-21 is the current authorization act for surface 

transportation programs and will expire at the end of fiscal year 2014. 

4

Congressional Budget Office, Highway Trust Fund Projections (Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2012). 

5

GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011). 

6

GAO, Highway Trust Fund Expenditures on Purposes Other than Construction and Maintenance of Highways 

and Bridges during Fiscal Years 2004-2008, GAO-09-729R (Washington, D.C.: June 2009). 

7

According to DOT, funds are obligated when the grant or project agreement is executed. For programs that 

operate on a reimbursement basis, as eligible expenses are incurred, recipients may request reimbursement. 

8

FHWA defines a project as a “safety” project if all or a significant portion of the project enhances safety in some 

way. 
Page 3 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

the U.S. Treasury or from the funds appropriated under the Recovery Act.9 We conducted 

this performance audit from July 2012 to January 2013 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. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is contained in 

enclosure I of this report. 

Results in Brief 

During fiscal years 2009 through 2011, four administrations within DOT obligated about 

$144 billion from the HTF.10 As shown in figure 1 below, FHWA obligated the largest 

share—about 81 percent—of this total, specifically: 

 FHWA obligated $116.7 billion from the HTF. A majority—about 81 percent—was 

obligated to construct and maintain highways and bridges. The remainder was 

obligated for other purposes such as safety, debt service, traffic management and 

planning and utilities, and for transportation enhancements. 

 FTA obligated about $24 billion—about 17 percent of the total obligations—from the 

HTF, almost all of it through grants to local and state transit agencies and 

governments to provide transit service, including grants for capital projects, 

planning, and operating assistance. 

 NHTSA obligated about $1.9 billion from the HTF mostly in safety grants to states 

and localities. 

 FMCSA obligated about $1.6 billion from the HTF for motor carrier safety grants to 

states and localities and to support their efforts to enforce federal commercial motor 

carrier safety standards. 

 

9

However, funds from the General Fund that had been transferred to the HTF were included in our analysis 

because once the funds are transferred they become part of the HTF. 

10According to DOT officials, these four DOT administrations (FHWA, FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA) are the only 

administrations that can directly obligate funds from the HTF. 
Page 4 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Figure 1: HTF Obligation Percentages by DOT Administration and by Purpose for FHWA, Fiscal Years 

2009 to 2011 

Note: We categorized FHWA’s obligations that were not for either transportation enhancements or for highway and bridge 

construction or maintenance purposes into the “other purposes” category. 

Background 

Congress established the HTF in 1956 to hold highway user taxes to fund various surface 

transportation programs. In 1983, the HTF was divided into the Highway Account and the 

Mass Transit Account. Receipts from the HTF are derived from two main sources: federal 

excise taxes on motor fuels (gasoline, diesel, and special fuels taxes) and truck-related taxes 

(truck and trailer sales, truck tire, and heavy-vehicle use taxes).11 Motor fuels tax receipts 

constitute the single largest source of HTF revenue. The Highway Account receives the 

majority of the tax receipts allocated to the fund. However, as we have noted, this source of 

funding has eroded over time. Since 2008, Congress has transferred about $34.5 billion from 

the General Fund to the HTF, including $26.5 billion from fiscal years 2009 to 2011.12

The HTF primarily supports four surface transportation administrations within the DOT. The 

Highway Account funds programs administered by FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA. The Mass 

Transit Account funds FTA programs. Table 1 shows the amounts authorized from the 

HTF’s Highway and Mass Transit Accounts by administration from fiscal years 2009 through 

2011. 

 

11The 18.4 cents per-gallon gasoline tax is split as follows: 15.44 cents per gallon to the Highway Account, 2.86 

cents per gallon to the Mass Transit Account, and 0.1 cent per gallon to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

Trust Fund. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund is administered by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. The federal gasoline tax has remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. 

12MAP-21 will also transfer an additional $18.8 billion from the General Fund to the HTF as well as $2.4 billion 

from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to the HTF’s Highway Account. Pub. L. No. 112-141, 

126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). 
Page 5 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Table 1: Authorized Amounts from HTF’s Highway and Mass Transit Accounts by DOT Administration, 

Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011

(Dollars in millions) 

Administration Highway account Mass transit account Total HTF account

FHWA $ 117,461 $ 117,461

FTA $ 28,565 28,565 

NHTSA 2,017 2,017 

FMCSA 1,595 1,595 

Total $ 121,072 $ 28,565 $ 149,637 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data. 

Note: The authorized amounts includes transfers and rescissions. 

DOT Administrations Obligated Approximately $144 Billion from the HTF 

during Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

During fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the four administrations within the DOT obligated 

about $144 billion of the almost $150 billion authorized from the HTF for all purposes. 

FHWA obligated the majority of this funding, with 81 percent of FHWA’s obligations going 

toward highway and bridge construction and maintenance. FHWA obligated 16 percent for 

other purposes, such as safety, debt service, traffic management, planning, and utilities. The 

remaining 3 percent was obligated for transportation enhancements. The other three DOT 

administrations obligated funds from the HTF for, among other things, assistance to public 

transit agencies, highway traffic safety grants, and commercial vehicle safety grants. 

Federal Highway Administration

FHWA obligated approximately $116.7 billion from the HTF from fiscal year 2009 through 

2011 to construct and maintain highways and bridges, and for other purposes—such as 

safety, debt service, and planning activities—and transportation enhancements, as shown in 

table 2. 

Table 2: FHWA’s Total Obligations from the HTF, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

Nature of work 

Total obligations 

(dollars in millions) Percentage

Highway and bridge construction and maintenance purposes $94,631 81%

Other purposes 18,862 16

Transportation enhancements 3,168 3

Total $116,661 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

Federal funding for highways is provided to the states mostly through a series of grant 

programs collectively known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program.13 FHWA administers the 

 

13FHWA also obligated about $3 billion (about 2.6 percent of FHWA’s total HTF obligations) from the HTF for the 

Federal Lands Highway Program from fiscal years 2009-2011. However, we did not include FHWA’s obligations 

from the HTF for its Federal Lands Highway Program in our analysis because FHWA does not classify 

obligations for this program in the same way it does for the federally-assisted, state-administered Federal-Aid 

Highway Program. 
Page 6 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Federal-Aid Highway Program and distributes most funds to the states through annual 

apportionments established by statutory formulas. Once FHWA apportions these funds, they 

are available for obligation for construction, reconstruction, and improvement of highways 

and bridges on eligible federal-aid highway routes, as well as for other authorized purposes 

through FHWA’s programs. Funds are obligated from these programs for eligible uses, 

which FHWA classifies into improvement types, such as new highway construction, bridge 

reconstruction, or safety enhancements. These eligible uses can be funded through a 

number of federal-aid highway programs. Four major FHWA highway grant programs 

account for over 70 percent of the approximately $116.7 billion that FHWA obligated from 

the HTF.14

 The Surface Transportation Program ($28.5 billion) funds the federal share of 

projects that states and localities may carry out on any federal-aid highway, 

including bridge projects, transit capital projects, and bus facilities;15

 The National Highway System ($23.5 billion) funds the federal share of projects 

improving roads that are part of the National Highway System;16

 The Highway Bridge Program ($16.3 billion) funds the federal share of projects to 

improve the condition of highway bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and 

systematic preventive maintenance; and 

 The Interstate Maintenance Program ($15.8 billion) funds the federal share of 

projects to resurface, restore, rehabilitate, and reconstruct Interstate routes. 

Table 3 shows that about $51.6 billion—a little over half of the monies FHWA obligated from 

the HTF for all construction and maintenance activities—was for highway construction and 

maintenance and about $21.4 billion was for bridge construction and maintenance. The 

remaining amount, about $21.6 billion, was obligated for other construction or maintenance 

expenditures such as preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition. A more granular 

analysis of all construction costs shows that about $64 billion of the funds FHWA obligated 

for highway or bridge construction or maintenance were for reconstruction, rehabilitation, 

restoration, or resurfacing of existing highways and bridges and about $9 billion were for 

new highway or bridge construction. 

 

14MAP-21 restructures core highway formula programs by incorporating activities carried out under some 

existing highway formula programs into a new structure. 

15Federal-aid highways are roads that are eligible to receive federal funding through the Federal-Aid Highway 

Program. This includes but is not limited to Interstate routes and other roads on the National Highway System 

(NHS). 

16The NHS includes the Interstate Highway System and other roads important to the nation’s economy, defense, 

and mobility. 
Page 7 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Table 3: FHWA’s Total Obligations for Construction and Maintenance Categories from the HTF, Fiscal 

Years 2009 to 2011 

Category of construction or maintenance 

Total obligations 

(dollars in millions) Percentagea

Highway construction or maintenance $51,627 55%

Renewing existing highwaysb 45,533 

New highway construction 6,094 

Bridge construction or maintenance 21,404 23

Renewing existing bridgesb 18,441 

New bridge construction 2,963 

Other construction or maintenancec 21,600 23

Total $94,631 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

a

Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

This category includes resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation highway projects which includes work necessary to return an

existing roadway (including road surface, shoulders, bridges, the roadside or appurtenances) to a condition of structural or 

functional adequacy. 

c

This category includes items supporting construction or maintenance of highways or bridges such as preliminary engineering 

and right-of-way acquisition. 

Table 4 shows a breakout of the $18.9 billion FHWA obligated from the HTF for “other 

purposes.”17 Over 75 percent of these funds were for safety; other programs (such as traffic 

control or monitoring, intelligent transportation systems, and recreational trail 

improvements); debt service; and planning activities. According to FHWA officials, some of 

these activities could have been precursors to construction and maintenance of highways or 

bridges, such as safety, planning, and research activities. 

 

17We categorized FHWA’s obligations that were not for either transportation enhancements or for highway and 

bridge construction or maintenance purposes into the “other purposes” category. 
Page 8 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Table 4: FHWA’s Total Obligations for Other Purposes from the HTF, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

Nature of worka Total obligations (dollars in millions) Percentageb

Safetyc $5,340 28%

Otherd 3,729 20

Debt servicee 2,827 15

Planning 2,451 13

Utilitiesf 1,286 7

Traffic management/engineering—high occupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lanesg 1,026 5

Rail/Highway crossingh 841 4

Research 498 3

Environmental onlyi 340 2

Transit 182 1

Trainingj 154 1

Ferry boats and facilitiesk 110 1

Administrationl 49 <1

Vehicle weight enforcement program 29 <1

Total $18,862 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

a

Some safety, planning, and research work can contribute or be a precursor to construction and maintenance of highways and 

bridges. 

b

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

c

This denotes projects wherein all or a significant portion of the project enhances safety in some way, for example, by 

constructing facilities dedicated to the enforcement of vehicle weight regulations. 

d

Includes projects such as traffic control or monitoring, intelligent transportation systems, and recreational trail improvements. 

e

Interest payments and retirement of principal under an eligible bond issue and any other cost incidental to the sale of an 

eligible bond issue. This includes capitalized interest, issuance costs, insurance or other credit enhancement fees, and other 

bond-related costs. 

f

Acquisition of replacement right-of-way, preliminary engineering, or movement of utility services, in conjunction with a highway 

project. 

g

Traffic operation improvements that are designed to reduce traffic congestion and to facilitate the flow of traffic, both people 

and vehicles, on existing systems. This includes automated toll collection equipment, road and bridge surveillance and control 

systems, and use of HOV lanes. 

h

Improvements and additions to protective devices such as signs, markings, flashing lights, and track circuitry. 

i

Improvements that do not provide any increase in the level of service or the condition of the facility or in safety features. This 

includes noise barriers, beautification, and other environmentally related features not built as a part of any other improvement 

type. 

j

Funding for training, supportive services, and on-the-job training. This is not training for FHWA employees. 

k

Construction of ferryboats and ferry terminal facilities. 

l

Administration for Recreational Trails Program projects, commercial vehicles, and other similar projects. 

Table 5 shows a breakout of the over $3.1 billion that FHWA obligated from the HTF for 

transportation enhancements. Of this amount, the majority, about 62 percent (almost $2 

billion), was for facilities for pedestrians or bicycles. Other types of transportation 

enhancements include landscaping and scenic beautification and historic preservation 

related to surface transportation. Funding from the HTF for certain FHWA programs, such as 

the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
Page 9 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Program, and the National Scenic Byways Program, could be used for these kinds of 

projects.18

Table 5: FHWA’s Total Obligations for Transportation Enhancements from the HTF, Fiscal Years 2009 to 

2011 

Type of transportation enhancement 

Total obligations 

 (dollars in millions) Percentagea

Facilities for pedestrians and bicycles $1,951 62%

Landscaping and other scenic beautification 523 17

Scenic or historic highway programs 204 6

Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, 

structures, or facilities 

 135 4

Safety and education for pedestrians and bicyclists 98 3

Mitigation of water pollution because of highway runoff 66 2

Historic preservation 44 1

Archaeological planning and research 43 1

Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites 39 1

Youth conservation service 24 1

Control and removal of outdoor advertising 16 1

Establishment of transportation museums 16 1

Preservation of abandoned railway corridors 9 <1

Total $3,168 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

a

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Federal Transit Administration

FTA obligated about $24 billion from the HTF through its Formula and Bus Grants account 

that provides grants to local and state transit agencies and governments to provide transit 

service, including grants for capital projects and planning.19 FTA has other programs for 

local and state public transit agencies that, as we reported in 2009, used to be funded from 

both the HTF and the General Fund.20 However, according to FTA officials, upon the 

enactment of SAFETEA-LU these programs, including the major capital investment projects 

within the Capital Investment Grants program (including New Starts and Small Starts), 

Research and University Research Centers, the Job Access and Reverse Commute, and 

 

18Under MAP-21, most of the transportation enhancement activities from these programs has been consolidated 

under FHWA’s new Transportation Alternatives formula program. 

19FTA also obligated $3 million from the HTF for its Discretionary Grants program. According to FTA officials, 

FTA obligated less than it was authorized from the HTF from fiscal years 2009 through 2011 because FTA’s 

grantees can take up to four years after authorized funds are awarded to enter into an agreement with FTA to 

obligate those funds. 

20According to FTA officials, prior to 2006, all of FTA’s program accounts were funded from both the HTF (at 80 

percent of the total amount funded) and the General Fund (at 20 percent). In 2006, appropriations for these 

accounts were changed so that funding was provided by either the General Fund or the HTF. Since FTA has up 

to 4 years to obligate funds, some general revenue funds may remain in the Formula and Bus Grants account. 
Page 10 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority programs are now funded entirely with 

direct appropriations from the General Fund.21 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NHTSA obligated about $1.9 billion from the HTF during fiscal years 2009 through 2011 

primarily through grants to support the improvement of highway safety, as shown in table 6. 

Table 6: NHTSA Obligations from the HTF, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

NHTSA Program 

Total obligations 

 (dollars in millions) Percentagea

Highway Traffic Safety grants 

State and Community Highway Safety Grant Programs 

(formula grants) 

 $704 36%

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants 417 21

Safety Belt Performance Grants 132 7

State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants 104 5

High Visibility Enforcement Program 87 4

Occupant Protection Incentive Grants 75 4

Grant administration 55 3

Motorcyclist Safety Grants 21 1

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Incentive Grants 21 1

Behavioral research 313 16

National Driver Register 12 1

Total $1,941 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

a

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Federal highway safety grants are jointly administered through a federal-state partnership, and 

costs are shared by the states. NHTSA also has a regulatory role in which it is to establish and 

enforce safety standards for passenger vehicles in areas such as tire safety and 

crashworthiness, as well as issue fuel economy standards. In addition, NHTSA conducts 

testing, inspection, analysis, and investigations to identify noncompliance with vehicle safety 

standards. Over half of NHTSA’s federal highway safety obligations during fiscal years 2009 

through 2011 from the HTF were distributed by grants to states through the State and 

Community Highway Safety Grant Program (about 36 percent) and to the Alcohol-Impaired 

Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants (about 21 percent). These programs support the 

following types of work: conducting data analyses, developing safety education programs, 

conducting community-wide pedestrian safety campaigns, reducing accidents from speeding, 

encouraging the proper use of seat belts and child seats, reducing accidents from driving 

while intoxicated, and preventing and reducing accidents between motor vehicles and 

motorcycles.22 NHTSA obligated the remaining amount for grants that support training 

 

21For fiscal years 2009 through 2011, FTA obligated about $4.6 billion from the General Fund for these 

programs. Since these programs are no longer funded through the Mass Transit Account of the HTF, obligation 

data for these programs are not presented in this report. 

22GAO, Motorcycle Safety: Increasing Federal Funding Flexibility and Indentifying Research Priorities Would 

Help Support States’ Safety Efforts, GAO-13-42 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2012). 
Page 11 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

programs and technical assistance for states, research and the National Driver Register.23

However, NHTSA’s entire Vehicle Safety Research program—which we reported in 2009 was 

funded from the HTF—and a portion of the National Driver Register, were funded through 

appropriations from the General Fund for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FMCSA obligated approximately $1.6 billion from the HTF during fiscal years 2009 through 

2011 primarily through grants to states to improve commercial motor vehicle safety, as 

shown in table 7.24

Table 7: FMCSA Obligations from the HTF, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

FMCSA Programa Total obligations (dollars in millions) Percentageb

Safety program grants 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Grant $634 39%

Border Enforcement Grants 89 6

Commercial Drivers License Program Improvement Grant 80 5

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks 

Deployment 

48 3

Performance and Registration Information System 

Management Grant Program 

12 1

Commercial Driver’s License Information System 16 1

Commercial Vehicle Analysis Reporting System/Safety 

Data Improvement Program 

9 1

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs 

Operating Expenses 550 34

Information Management 104 6

Regulatory Development 28 2

Research and Technology 27 2

Outreach and Education 9 1

Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators Grants 3 <1

Total $1,608 

Source: GAO analysis of FMCSA data. 

a

Prior to fiscal year 2009, FMCSA reported obligations from the HTF for the Information Systems and Strategic Safety 

Initiatives (ISSSI) program separately from other FMCSA safety program grants. However, after fiscal year 2010, FMCSA 

changed how it reports obligations for its programs, and the ISSSI program obligations were combined into other motor carrier 

safety operations and program obligations. 

b

Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

 

23According to NHTSA, the National Driver Register is a computerized database of information about drivers who 

have had their licenses revoked or suspended, or who have been convicted of serious traffic violations such as 

driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs. 

24According to FMCSA officials, FMCSA’s obligations from the HTF from fiscal years 2009 through 2011 were 

$13 million higher than its contract authority for the same period because funds for FMCSA’s Research and 

Technology program are available for obligation for up to 3 years after they are allocated and therefore include 

obligations of contract authority provided prior to fiscal year 2009. 
Page 12 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

FMCSA is charged with establishing and enforcing standards for motor carrier vehicles and 

operations, hazardous materials, and the movement of household goods, among other 

things. FMCSA also conducts compliance reviews of motor carriers’ operations at their 

places of business as well as roadside inspections of drivers and vehicles, and can assess a 

variety of penalties, including fines and orders for noncompliant motor carriers to cease 

interstate operations. Federal motor carrier safety grants are jointly administered through a 

federal-state partnership. Similar to NHTSA, FMCSA provides funding to states through 

grant programs. The largest of the federal motor carrier safety grant programs, the Motor 

Carrier Safety Assistance Program, provided $634 million (almost 40 percent of FMCSA’s 

total obligations) to states to implement enforcement and other programs to reduce crashes 

involving commercial motor vehicles and incidents involving hazardous materials. FMCSA 

obligated $550 million for its own operating expenses to administer its motor carrier safety 

operations and programs.25

Agency Comments 

We provided FHWA, FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA with a draft of this report for their review 

and comment. The administrations provided technical comments that we incorporated 

where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to DOT and cognizant Congressional committees. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If 

you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 

mctiguej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Susan Zimmerman, Assistant Director; 

Greg Hanna; Ted Hu; Amy Rosewarne; Crystal Wesco; and Elizabeth Wood made key 

contributions to this report. 

James R. McTigue, Jr. 

Acting Director 

Physical Infrastructure 

 

 

25GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: More Assessment and Transparency Could Enhance Benefits of New Oversight 

Program, GAO-11-858 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011). 
Page 13 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

The objective of this report is to provide information on the amount of Highway Trust Fund 

(HTF) monies that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) obligated for all purposes during fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011. 

To address our reporting objective, we used a similar methodology to our prior report.26

Specifically, with assistance from FHWA’s Office of Financial Management, we categorized 

all of FHWA’s 48 “improvement type” codes from its Fiscal Management Information System 

(FMIS) into three broad categories (construction and maintenance of highways and bridges, 

transportation enhancements and other purposes).27 We used the classification scheme 

from the previous GAO report on HTF expenditures for the transportation enhancements 

and other purpose categories and classified the remaining improvement types into the 

construction and maintenance of highways and bridges category. We requested and 

obtained obligation data from FHWA for each of these improvement types for the period 

fiscal year 2009 through 2011. FHWA produced this information from FMIS, which interacts 

with DOT’s Delphi accounting system. In our prior report, we determined that information 

from FMIS was reliable, and we interviewed FHWA officials to confirm that no changes had 

been made to FMIS that would affect FMIS’s reliability. We also clarified with FHWA officials 

the definitions of FHWA’s improvement types and the descriptive information used from our 

prior report about FHWA’s programs. 

We requested, obtained, and analyzed FTA data on obligations for all programs in fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011, which FTA produced from the Delphi system. We confirmed with 

FTA officials that some of the programs that were reported in our prior report on HTF 

obligations were now funded from the General Fund, and we excluded them from our 

analysis. However, because of the nature of FTA’s grant programs and the changes 

mandated in SAFETEA-LU, FTA officials stated that it was possible that some funds 

obligated from the accounts now funded solely from the HTF could have been originally 

appropriated from the General Fund prior to the SAFETEA-LU accounting change. We also 

requested, obtained, and analyzed NHTSA and FMCSA data on obligations for all programs 

from the HTF during the 3-year period. Both agencies also produced this data from Delphi. 

We interviewed officials from FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA about the agencies’ uses of HTF 

monies for all purposes. We used the FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA data to report the total 

cumulative obligations at the agency and program levels for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. 

We also confirmed that our descriptive information on the administration’s mission and 

selected programs used from our prior report was accurate with officials from all three 

administrations. 

 

26GAO-09-729R. 

27According to FHWA, “improvement type” is a required field in FMIS that indicates the nature of work involved. 

For instance, each of the 12 eligible transportation enhancement activities has its own improvement type code, 

as do safety, transit, planning, and all other eligible activities under FHWA programs. FHWA officials were 

reasonably confident that the obligated dollars the agency provided correspond specifically to the designated 

improvement type. 
Page 14 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

We interviewed officials from FHWA, FTA, NHTSA, and FMCSA and obtained written 

information from all four administrations and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

about steps taken to ensure the reliability of their data from the Delphi system. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to January 2013 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. 

 
Page 15 GAO-13-193R Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Enclosure II: Related GAO Products 

Flexible Funding Continues to Play a Role in Supporting State and Local Transportation 

Priorities. GAO-13-19R. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012. 

Motorcycle Safety: Increasing Federal Funding Flexibility and Indentifying Research 

Priorities Would Help Support States’ Safety Efforts. GAO-13-42. Washington, D.C.: 

November 14, 2012. 

Transportation: Key Issues and Management Challenges. GAO-12-581T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 29, 2012. 

Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and Poses Oversight 

Risks. GAO-12-474. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2012.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen 

Grants Management. GAO-12-158. Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2011. 

Motor Carrier Safety: More Assessment and Transparency Could Enhance Benefits of New 

Oversight Program. GAO-11-858. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2011.

Highway Trust Fund: All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway 

Taxes from 2005 to 2009. GAO-11-918. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2011. 

High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.: February 2011. 

Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen Accountability over 

States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds. GAO-10-999. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 

2010. 

Highway Trust Fund: Nearly All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in 

Highway Taxes Since 2005. GAO-10-780. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010. 

Highway Trust Fund: Expenditures on Purposes Other than Construction and Maintenance 

of Highways and Bridges during Fiscal Years 2004-2008. GAO-09-729R. Washington, D.C.: 

June 30, 2009. 

(542206) 
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.
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 (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 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, 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. 

Contact:

Website: 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

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.