# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Aircraft Registrations: Risks Remain from Efforts to Obscure Ownership Information What GAO FoundTo register civil aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), applicants can provide opaque information on beneficial owners—persons who ultimately own and control the aircraft—resulting in criminal and national security risks through aircraft registry fraud and abuse. Additionally, FAA generally relies on self-certification of registrants' eligibility and does not verify key information.In a March 2020 report, GAO identified several ways that beneficial ownership in aircraft registrations could be hidden. Specifically, beneficial ownership could be hidden usinopaque ownership structures, such as shell companies and noncitizen trusts, which are aircraft trusts registered to U.S.-citizen owner trustees with noncitizen trustors;	intermediaries, which are individuals and entities that facilitate aircraft registration for a fee;	addresses of registered agents, which are individuals or entities authorized to accept important legal and tax documents on behalf of a business; and	nominees, which are individuals or entities listed as the owners but in fact acting on behalf of beneficial owners.The following example illustrates the use of such approaches to obscure the beneficial owner of an aircraft involved in a Malaysian money laundering case. The aircraft, among other assets, was ultimately forfeited to the U.S. government.Example of Aircraft Registration Using Opaque Ownership Structures and Multiple Intermediaries and JurisdictionsFAA took steps to mitigate registry fraud and abuse by implementing three GAO recommendations. Specifically, FAA assessed its fraud and abuse risks; determined the impact and likelihood of those risks and established its risk tolerance; and developed an antifraud strategy. However, 12 recommendations remain open, including key recommendations related to collecting data on individuals and entities to verify identity and eligibility. Without further action by FAA, the aircraft registry remains vulnerable to continued fraud and abuse.Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. aircraft registry, managed by FAA, maintains information on civil aircraft to facilitate aviation safety, security, and commerce. FAA issues aircraft registrations to individuals and entities that meet eligibility requirements, such as U.S. citizenship or permanent legal residence. Registry fraud and abuse hinders national security and criminal investigations when law-enforcement officials try to identify aircraft and their owners who might be involved in illicit operations.This testimony discusses (1) how beneficial ownership information can be obscured in aircraft registrations and (2) FAA efforts to implement GAO recommendations to mitigate registry fraud and abuse.This testimony is based primarily on GAO's March 2020 report on FAA's efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud and abuse risks in aircraft registrations (GAO-20-164). For that report, GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and FAA policies; reviewed reports, press releases, and court cases that illustrated risks associated with the registry; analyzed aircraft registry data from fiscal years 2010 through 2018 to identify registrations with risk indicators; and interviewed FAA and federal law enforcement officials.
- Vehicle Repair: Information on Evolving Vehicle Technologies and Consumer Choice [Reissued with revisions on Apr. 5, 2024] What GAO FoundRight-to-repair is the ability of consumers to decide who repairs their products. For vehicles, this means consumers deciding whether to make their own repairs or take their vehicle to repair facilities at independent repair shops or dealerships franchised with automakers. Most automakers have been operating under a 2014 voluntary nationwide right-to-repair agreement. This agreement has generally resulted in independent repair shops not associated with vehicle manufacturers having access to the information, data, and tools needed for vehicle repairs. However, stakeholders GAO interviewed and a nongeneralizable review of complaints suggest that independent repair shops may face some limitations in that access.Advanced vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles, may make repairs more expensive and complex because they require additional knowledge, equipment, and other investments. Such issues could particularly affect some independent repair shops, that are unable to make such commitments. In addition, according to some independent repair stakeholders GAO interviewed, the use of telematics systems to wirelessly transfer data between vehicles and automakers could give dealerships a competitive advantage over independent repair shops in conducting some repairs. However, industry and independent repair stakeholders GAO interviewed agreed that telematics data are not currently needed to conduct repairs.The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is focused on vehicle safety and its role in vehicle right-to-repair issues is limited to cybersecurity issues that could affect vehicle safety. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is involved in protecting consumers and promoting competition, including in the vehicle repair market. FTC is taking steps to better understand potential vehicle repair limitations by considering new ways to categorize and analyze potentially relevant consumer complaints. If independent repair shops face limitations in access to the information, data, and tools needed for repair or are otherwise disadvantaged compared to dealerships, consumers may have fewer repair choices, which may reduce competition and make repairs more expensive and inconvenient.Why GAO Did This StudyGAO was asked to review the effects of changing vehicle technologies on vehicle right-to-repair. This report examines how changes in vehicle technologies are affecting competition and consumer choice in the vehicle repair market and NHTSA's and FTC's actions related to this issue.To conduct this work, GAO conducted a literature search and reviewed relevant publications, conducted a non-generalizable review of vehicle and vehicle repair complaints, and interviewed over 50 industry and consumer-focused stakeholders, including vehicle manufacturers, independent repair shops, and others.For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at (202) 512-2834 or repkoe@gao.gov.
- Roadside Safety: DOT Should Update Public Awareness Materials on Move Over Laws What GAO FoundAll states and the District of Columbia (states) have “Move Over or Slow Down” (Move Over) laws, which generally require drivers to change lanes, slow down, or both when approaching certain vehicles stopped on the roadside with their warning lights activated. These laws can protect vulnerable roadside workers. Move Over law requirements vary, such as in the specific actions required of drivers, potential penalties for a violation, and types of vehicles covered. All states have laws covering first responder vehicles, such as police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances. Move Over laws in all states also cover certain other types of vehicles, which may include highway construction, utility, trash, or disabled vehicles. There is no federal Move Over law.States have promoted their Move Over laws in various ways, including through road signs and social media; targeted law enforcement; and annual public awareness events. When planning these efforts, states consider factors such as available resources and staff expertise.Example of Move Over or Slow Down Road SignWithin the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supports states' efforts to promote Move Over laws through funding, research, and public awareness materials (e.g., sample social media posts, press releases, graphics, banners, and videos). However, NHTSA's public awareness materials generally focus on first responders and do not fully reflect states' Move Over laws, all of which now cover a wider range of vehicles. Officials GAO interviewed from two of the seven selected states said they use NHTSA's materials. State officials also described having limited resources and expertise to develop such materials themselves. Updating NHTSA's materials to more fully reflect the types of vehicles covered by states' laws, such as highway construction, utility, trash, and disabled vehicles, would enable NHTSA to help states better promote their Move Over laws and could ultimately improve safety for all motorists on the side of the road.Why GAO Did This StudyFirst responders, highway construction workers, and others risk being killed or injured when working on the side of the road. Reducing transportation-related fatalities and injuries is one of DOT's top priorities. NHTSA plays a key role in working toward that priority, including by supporting states' efforts to promote their Move Over laws.The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to states' Move Over laws. This report (1) identifies the key characteristics of states' Move Over laws, (2) describes how states have promoted these laws, and (3) assesses the extent to which DOT has supported states' efforts to promote these laws.GAO reviewed Move Over laws and certain related legal provisions for all states, as well as online information about states' promotion efforts. GAO compared DOT's public awareness materials related to Move Over laws with DOT strategic plans and federal internal control standards. GAO also interviewed officials in seven states selected for specific characteristics of their Move Over laws, as well as DOT officials and stakeholders from law enforcement, trash and recycling, and other associations.
- Gas Pipeline Safety: Better Data and Planning Would Improve Implementation of Regulatory Changes What GAO FoundThe Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) sets the federal minimum safety standards for all gas transmission pipelines, including regulations for the risk-based integrity management program. Under integrity management regulations, pipeline operators must establish programs to assess, identify, and mitigate risks to pipelines in "high consequence areas," which may include areas with homes or schools, and other highly populated areas.Operators can use two methods to identify high consequence areas. One of these methods calculates the potential impact radius of a pipeline incident. PHMSA officials told GAO the agency is considering regulatory changes to improve the accuracy of this method. However, GAO's analysis found that PHMSA lacks complete information from actual pipeline incidents that would help it determine if this method is accurate. Determining what additional data are needed from operators could improve the quality of PHMSA's data on pipeline incidents and assist the agency in evaluating the method's accuracy over time.More broadly, PHMSA issued two final rules in October 2019 and August 2022 that strengthened gas transmission pipeline safety regulations. Among other changes, these rules require operators to assess additional pipeline mileage and improve pipeline characteristic data on their pipeline systems.PHMSA has largely implemented the 2019 final rule by providing training to federal and state pipeline inspectors and guidance to the pipeline industry, among other activities. In addition, PHMSA established Final Rule Implementation web pages to improve access to related resources. Selected stakeholders GAO spoke with—including representatives from selected pipeline industry and safety groups, state regulatory officials, and gas transmission pipeline operators—identified key changes in the final rules that they expect will improve pipeline safety. However, stakeholders also told GAO they experienced challenges with PHMSA's implementation of the 2019 final rule, including the timeliness and clarity of related guidance.PHMSA officials said they are in the process of implementing the 2022 final rule, and the effort is being led by the agency's new rule implementation division. PHMSA officials told GAO the agency does not have or intend to develop an implementation plan to guide its efforts. Instead, officials have completed several activities related to the 2022 final rule and created a task list of the remaining activities; however, GAO found that the document does not contain clear objectives, timelines, or communication strategies for these activities. By creating a plan for the remaining activities, PHMSA could better ensure that officials complete these activities in a timely manner and provide relevant information to the appropriate audiences.In addition, GAO found that PHMSA's Final Rule Implementation web pages do not include complete information and guidance for both rules. With updated web pages, operators and inspectors may find information about the 2019 and 2022 final rules more accessible.Why GAO Did This StudyAbout 300,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines across the United States carry products from processing facilities to communities and other large-volume customers. Pipelines are a relatively safe mode for transporting natural gas and other commodities, but incidents can still occur.The Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to examine issues related to gas transmission integrity management programs and other pipeline safety topics following completion of a specific pipeline safety rulemaking by PHMSA. This report includes information on potential changes to the methods operators use to identify high consequence areas; how selected stakeholders, including pipeline operators and state inspectors, view the regulatory changes to gas transmission pipeline safety; and how PHMSA is overseeing the implementation of final rules completing this rulemaking.
- International Mail: Effects of Rate Increases and Other Factors on USPS and Domestic Stakeholders What GAO FoundThe United States Postal Service's (USPS) international mail volume declined from about 1 billion pieces in fiscal year 2017 to about 355 million pieces in fiscal year 2022 (see figure). USPS officials stated that the drop was caused primarily by the implementation of substantially higher rates in 2020. These rates are called “self-declared” rates because the U.S. and other countries were allowed to set their own rates for certain inbound international mail items. USPS's inbound volume subject to self-declared rates fell substantially from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2022. USPS's revenue from international mail also declined over this period but still covered or exceeded its costs.U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) Inbound, Outbound, and Total International Mail Volume, Fiscal Years 2017-2022All domestic stakeholders GAO interviewed cited at least one of the following factors as contributing to the decline in USPS's international mail business since 2017.International mail rates increased.	COVID-19 restricted options to get mail in and out of the U.S.	New customs laws increased costs for sending international mail.Several stakeholders GAO interviewed said increases in international mail rates likely benefited some businesses and hindered others. They said that express companies, such as FedEx and UPS, may have become more competitive as USPS and other national postal carriers raised their prices for their international mail products. USPS's increases were passed along to U.S. businesses that send mail out of the U.S., making them less competitive. These increases may have been passed on to U.S. consumers. However, stakeholders noted that the effect on consumers is difficult to estimate as mailing rates are not transparent to the consumer and are only one input to the cost of the item.Why GAO Did This StudyUSPS provides postal services to and from other countries through the Universal Postal Union, a specialized agency of the United Nations. This agency established a system for international mailing rates that reimburse postal operators for delivering international mail in their countries. In 2017, GAO reported that USPS lost money on delivering international mail from other countries because mailing rates on small packages did not cover USPS's costs.GAO was asked to review the effects of increased international mail rates on USPS's international mail business. This report describes: (1) how USPS's international mail business has changed in the past 6 years; (2) what factors domestic stakeholders identified that contributed to those changes; and (3) effects those stakeholders identified from increased international mail rates.GAO analyzed USPS data from fiscal years 2017 through 2022 and reviewed reports on international mail from USPS, the Universal Postal Union, and others. GAO visited two USPS mail processing facilities and interviewed USPS officials and 12 industry stakeholders. These stakeholders were selected to represent a range of views, including express companies, U.S. companies that send international mail, U.S. companies that compete with foreign firms that use international mail, and independent experts on international mail. While not generalizable, the interviews provide illustrative examples of stakeholders' views. This is a public version of a sensitive report that was issued in February 2024. Information that USPS deemed sensitive has been omitted.For more information, contact David Marroni at (202) 512-2834 or marronid@gao.gov.
- Driver Assistance Technologies: NHTSA Should Take Action to Enhance Consumer Understanding of Capabilities and Limitations What GAO FoundNew vehicles are increasingly equipped with driver assistance technologies designed to prevent or mitigate crashes (crash avoidance technologies) and support the driving task (driver support systems). According to interviewed stakeholders and research GAO reviewed, when drivers have a realistic understanding of their vehicles' driver assistance technologies, they are more likely to use them as intended. There is some evidence, however, that consumers do not always have an accurate understanding of technologies' capabilities and limitations. One study found that between 27 and 79 percent of consumers surveyed had misperceptions about the limitations of different crash avoidance technologies in their vehicles. In addition, misuse is a safety concern particular to partial driving automation systems, a type of driver support system, which can take over some of the driving tasks in a vehicle but still requires the full attention of the driver.Vehicle Dashboard Displays Driver Assistance Technology ActivationWithin the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides consumers with information on crash avoidance technologies through its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), additional information on its website, and other means. NHTSA uses checkmarks to indicate whether vehicles come equipped with the four crash avoidance technologies that it recommends and that meet NHTSA's performance criteria. In 2022, NHTSA published a draft roadmap with plans to upgrade NCAP, including recommending four more crash avoidance technologies and developing a rating system for them. These upgrades would provide more comprehensive and comparative information to consumers. However, NHTSA has not finalized its roadmap and has missed time frames even though work on these upgrades started years ago. Developing realistic time frames and publicly communicating its progress could help NHTSA provide consumers with more meaningful information. Aside from NCAP, NHTSA provides consumers with a description on partial driving automation systems, but there is little information about their intended use and operational limitations. Providing this information could assist consumers in developing a more accurate understanding of these systems.Why GAO Did This StudyAccording to NHTSA, almost 42,800 people died in vehicle crashes in 2022. New vehicles are increasingly equipped with driver assistance technologies that could help reduce crashes and fatalities. NHTSA administers NCAP to educate consumers about vehicle safety, including driver assistance technologies, and to assist in consumers' purchasing decisions.The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, included a provision for GAO to review consumer education about driver assistance technologies. Among the issues this report examines are (1) consumers' use and understanding of driver assistance technologies; and (2) the extent to which NHTSA contributes to consumers' understanding and using the technologies as intended.GAO reviewed NHTSA's relevant rulemaking documents, website, and studies; analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of NHTSA consumer complaint data; and interviewed NHTSA and other relevant agency officials and a range of industry stakeholders, including automakers and safety organizations. GAO assessed NHTSA's efforts against key project schedule management practices.
- Port Infrastructure: U.S. Ports Have Adopted Some Automation Technologies and Report Varied Effects What GAO FoundAutomation technology at ports reduces human involvement in processing and handling cargo. All of the 10 largest U.S. container ports have adopted automation technology to varying degrees. At least one terminal at each of these ports uses process automation technology to optimize, track, or communicate container movements (e.g., automated gate systems). Four also use automated cargo handling equipment to load, unload, and move containers. Selected foreign ports generally adopted more automation technologies than U.S. ports due to factors such as larger container volumes and variations in labor availability.Automated Cargo Handling Equipment at TraPac Los Angeles TerminalU.S. and international port stakeholders agreed that automation technologies can improve worker safety by separating humans from machines and can reduce emissions by improving efficiency. However, they reported mixed effects on the workforce, security, and performance. For example, a few terminal operators said automated equipment could stack containers more densely than conventional equipment, increasing capacity; others said this equipment moved containers more slowly than conventional equipment, reducing performance. Similarly, a few stakeholders said automation can reduce jobs; others said automation can create more comfortable work environments and new, higher-skilled positions.Officials from U.S. ports and terminal operators said operators consider factors such as labor, costs, priorities, and operations when deciding whether to automate. The relative importance of these factors varies based on the unique circumstances of each port and terminal.The Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Maritime Commission conduct some activities that are related to port automation, though few of these activities are explicitly focused on port automation. For instance, GAO identified eight discretionary grant programs which do not explicitly support port automation, but which ports could use to acquire certain automation technologies.Why GAO Did This StudyU.S. ports' ability to efficiently move containers into and out of terminals is crucial for the U.S. economy. In 2020, coastal ports handled cargo that accounted for nearly half of U.S. trade. Faced with increased container volumes and supply chain challenges, some ports in the U.S. and abroad have adopted automation technologies to improve performance and increase capacity.The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 included a provision for GAO to describe the adoption of technologies at U.S. ports as compared to foreign ports. This report describes: (1) the adoption of automation technologies by selected U.S. container ports and similarities to technologies adopted by selected foreign container ports; (2) the reported effects of port automation technologies; (3) how U.S. terminal operators consider these effects and other factors when deciding whether to adopt automation technologies; and (4) federal activities related to the development or adoption of port automation technologies.GAO analyzed information from equipment manufacturers, ports, and terminal operators. These ports included the 10 largest U.S. container ports by volume and 10 foreign ports selected for factors such as volume and location. GAO visited U.S. and foreign ports and interviewed port and terminal operator officials at these ports, as well as nine other industry stakeholders, including two labor unions. GAO also reviewed federal documents and interviewed officials from six federal entities.For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or VonAha@gao.gov.
- Commercial Aviation: Key Lessons from COVID-19 Preparedness and Emergency Financial Assistance to the Industry What GAO FoundA key lesson from GAO's prior work is that greater federal leadership could benefit both aviation pandemic  preparedness  and disease mitigation  research  .The Department of Transportation (DOT) has not developed a national aviation  preparedness  plan for communicable disease outbreaks as GAO recommended in 2015. Such a plan is needed to avoid the piecemeal response seen early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholders GAO spoke to in 2020 and 2021 said confidence in air travel could have been restored more quickly with greater federal coordination. At GAO's urging, Congress passed legislation in December 2022 requiring DOT to develop the plan.	In July 2022, GAO reported that federal leadership was needed to advance  research  on disease transmission in air travel, including real-world situations and the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. GAO recommended Congress direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a research strategy, which Congress had not done as of March 2024.DOT and FAA officials stated in 2023 and 2024 that they have actions underway to develop the preparedness plan and identify needed research. By implementing GAO's recommendations, DOT and other aviation stakeholders would be better positioned to address a communicable disease threat while minimizing unnecessary aviation disruptions which were significant in the case of COVID-19.Key lessons from GAO's work on four COVID-19 aviation financial assistance programs— the Department of the Treasury's Payroll Support Program (PSP) and CARES Act loan program and DOT's Airport Grants and Aviation Manufacturing Jobs Protection Program—include the following.Financial and other safeguards,&nbsp;when developed before distributing assistance, can help agencies minimize risks associated with emergency funding. DOT and Treasury quickly awarded funds but did not always have safeguards in place in a timely manner. For instance, Treasury did not quickly implement a monitoring plan for PSP.	Multiple programs or paths within a program  may better accommodate businesses of varying types and sizes. Businesses eligible for the PSP and loan programs ranged from large airlines to ticket agents with a handful of employees. Large airlines viewed the programs favorably, but small businesses reported challenges accessing funds.	Clear communication  with eligible entities is important for new or expanded funding programs. Some program applicants reported confusion—e.g., small businesses new to applying for federal funding—regarding issues such as eligibility requirements and expected funding time frames.	Workforce retention  requirements were a part of all four programs, but airlines still struggled with sufficient staffing to handle air traffic when it recovered. The aviation industry credited the funding programs, especially the PSP, in providing critical support. But factors such as early retirements and pauses on employee training also affected airline workforce levels.Why GAO Did This StudyThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in catastrophic loss of life and profoundly affected the aviation industry. In April 2020, U.S. commercial airline traffic fell to 3 million passengers, a 96 percent decrease from April 2019. The federal government responded in many ways, including by providing $132 billion in financial assistance to airlines, aviation and other businesses, and airports.GAO was asked to identify lessons from COVID-19. This report examines key lessons GAO identified from the federal government's (1) preparedness and response to disease transmission in air travel and (2) financial assistance to the aviation industry.GAO reviewed its body of work on aviation and the pandemic, which includes over 20 reports, to identify relevant lessons. GAO also reviewed documents from offices of inspector general and aviation stakeholders as well as interviewed officials from DOT and Treasury.
- Advanced Air Mobility: Legal Authorities and Issues to Consider for Operations What GAO FoundAdvanced Air Mobility (AAM) is an emerging concept of air transportation that will leverage new types of aircraft and innovative technologies, such as electrified propulsion systems, to move people and goods, while operating more quietly than traditional aircraft and with reduced aircraft emissions. In 2022, GAO reported that stakeholders said the federal government—including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT)—and industry will need to address a variety of issues before AAM operations can be widely implemented, including bringing AAM aircraft into commercial use.DOT identified a variety of legal authorities that are relevant to the future regulation of civilian AAM operations, and FAA—which is responsible for ensuring the safety and efficiency of the U.S. aerospace system—has taken actions using these authorities. These actions include publishing proposed rules, developing interim guidance, and reviewing existing policies. For example:Aircraft certification. FAA prescribes rules for aircraft certification and safety. FAA is in the process of certifying initial AAM aircraft designs using existing certification processes and rules.	Pilot and mechanic training. FAA determines the knowledge, experience, and training requirements for pilots and mechanics. In a June 2023 notice of proposed rulemaking, FAA proposed temporary pilot training standards that would apply to initial groups of AAM pilots. FAA said that it would develop rules on AAM mechanic certification at a later time, if needed.	Airspace management. FAA prescribes aircraft operational requirements, such as minimum flight altitudes. FAA's 2023 AAM Implementation Plan says that near-term AAM operations can be managed with existing air traffic control tools, procedures, and protocols.	Vertiport construction and noise management. FAA issued interim guidance on vertiport design standards and is considering the impact of AAM operations as the agency reviews its noise policy.​​​​​​Officials from DOT and selected tribal, state, and local government officials generally agreed that FAA has exclusive legal authority over three of these topic areas—(1) certification and safety of AAM aircraft, (2) pilot and mechanic training, and (3) airspace management. Tribal, state, and local governments have certain legal authorities related to vertiport construction and noise management. For example, tribal, state, and local governments have the authority to develop and enforce zoning regulations, which would determine where vertiports could be built and could influence how communities experience noise from AAM aircraft.According to government officials, industry stakeholders, and others we interviewed, there are certain issues to consider in the short term (present day through 2028) as the AAM industry develops, while other issues may be more relevant in the long term as AAM operations evolve (after 2028).Issues for consideration in the short term. Officials with whom we spoke noted that they are awaiting the finalization of rules or guidance from DOT on key topics. For example, some local officials said that it would be premature to discuss changes to existing requirements for AAM aircraft vertiport infrastructure until FAA completes its recommendations for the clearance needed around AAM aircraft takeoff and landing locations.	Issues for consideration in the long term. In the longer term, some interviewees expressed the view that issues might arise in key areas as the industry develops and the tempo of AAM operations increase. For example, a few interviewees noted that the current approach for certifying AAM aircraft might become too time-consuming if manufacturers seek to certify numerous diverse AAM designs. In addition, some interviewees anticipated that current federal airspace management regulations will be appropriate for initial, piloted AAM operations, but as some of these aircraft are expected to be capable of autonomous flight, regulations will need to evolve to manage uncrewed, autonomous AAM aircraft.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act, enacted in October 2022, included a provision for GAO to conduct a study on the roles, responsibilities, and interests of federal, tribal, state, and local governments with regards to AAM.This report describes (1) the legal authorities held by DOT relevant to the future regulation of civilian AAM operations, and actions taken relevant to these authorities, (2) relevant legal authorities of selected tribal, state, and local governments, and (3) issues to consider as the AAM industry develops, as identified by selected government entities and other stakeholders.To address each objective, we focused on five key areas that we have previously found to be important to the development of AAM operations. These topic areas include:certification and safety of aircraft,	pilot and mechanic training,	airspace management,	vertiport construction, and	noise management.For more information, contact Heather Krause at 202-512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov.
- Surface Transportation: DOT Considers Multiple Factors when Choosing the Volpe Center to Conduct Research What GAO FoundThe U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) operating administrations enter into agreements with DOT's John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) for a variety of services, including research. DOT officials told GAO that they consider multiple factors when choosing the Volpe Center to conduct research or perform other services. These factors include:Expertise. DOT officials told GAO that they consider the Volpe Center's expertise and institutional knowledge on a topic. For example, the Federal Highway Administration has leveraged the Volpe Center's technical expertise in noise reduction and air quality to create tools for state and regional officials to demonstrate reduced congestion and improved air quality.	Nature of the work. DOT officials told GAO that, because the Volpe Center is a part of the agency, certain issues (e.g., inherently governmental functions) are best addressed by Volpe Center staff. For example, Volpe Center staff have long served as the primary technical resource informing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's fuel economy standards rulemaking.	Response time. DOT officials told GAO that the Volpe Center's ability to rapidly respond to agency needs is also a consideration. Volpe Center officials cited the center's recent work to help form the new Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which involved performing technical reviews of grant applications, as an example of its ability to respond rapidly.The proportion of research funding committed to the Volpe Center compared to other entities varied across five selected DOT operating administrations in fiscal year 2022 (see figure). Combined, these operating administrations committed a total of $50.5 million—13 percent of their total fiscal year 2022 research funding—to the Volpe Center. The remaining 87 percent went to other entities such as universities, businesses, and non-profit organizations.Research Funding Committed to the Volpe Center and Other Entities by Five Department of Transportation Operating Administrations, Fiscal Year 2022DOT operating administrations manage their respective research portfolios. According to DOT officials, each operating administration's distribution of research funding is driven by its mission and role, the scope of individual projects, and the factors described above.Why GAO Did This StudyDOT's research activities are critical to its mission of making the nation's transportation system safer and more efficient. In 2020, GAO found that this research may be conducted by the agency's operating administrations, nonfederal research entities, or DOT's Volpe Center. DOT established what is now the Volpe Center in 1970. Its mission is to improve the U.S. transportation system by anticipating emerging issues and advancing technical, operational, and institutional innovations for the public good.The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to review the surface transportation activities at the Volpe Center. This report describes (1) factors that selected DOT operating administrations consider when choosing the Volpe Center for research or other services, and (2) how much research funding selected DOT operating administrations committed to the Volpe Center compared to other entities in fiscal year 2022, among other objectives.GAO selected five DOT operating administrations for analysis that have a surface transportation-focused mission, are responsible for duties and initiatives intended to improve the safety of the traveling public, and entered into agreements with the Volpe Center in fiscal year 2022. GAO also reviewed relevant laws and DOT policies; analyzed DOT data; and interviewed officials from DOT, the Volpe Center, and the five selected operating administrations.For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at (202) 512-2834 or repkoe@gao.gov.
- Commercial Aviation Manufacturing: Supply Chain Challenges and Actions to Address Them What GAO FoundOrders for new commercial aircraft have rebounded since they declined in 2020. However, the two main manufacturers of commercial aircraft—Boeing and Airbus—have faced challenges in increasing production of their most popular models—the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320—to meet demand. Steps Boeing and FAA are taking to ensure safety after a January 2024 in-flight failure of a section of the fuselage have also affected Boeing's production levels early in 2024. Additionally, of the 15 companies GAO interviewed that supply components to Boeing and Airbus, nine said that they have likewise had difficulty filling orders with the rebound in demand following the COVID-19 pandemic.Estimated Number of Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 Aircraft Produced, 2013–2023Manufacturers attributed these production challenges to workforce and material shortages and are working to mitigate them. Fifteen of the 17 manufacturers GAO spoke to said they or their suppliers have had difficulty hiring enough skilled workers to enable them to satisfy the demand for their products. Six manufacturers said that difficulty hiring sufficient workers may be related to difficult or hazardous working conditions that some of these jobs entail, such as the use of toxic chemicals. Some manufacturers reported offering financial incentives and working with local schools to build interest in aviation careers to address their workforce needs. Further, fifteen manufacturers said that they or their suppliers have had difficulty procuring materials needed to complete their orders. Material shortages included a broad range of items, such as engines and semiconductors as well as raw materials like aluminum. To address these material shortages, manufacturers said they have increased monitoring of suppliers and established additional sources for some supplies.Airlines reported making changes to scheduled flights and developing ways to safely extend the life of some parts, among other actions, due to the difficulty obtaining new aircraft or the parts needed to maintain their current fleet. Seven of the eight airlines GAO spoke with reported delays of new aircraft they had expected to receive in 2023, and all eight airlines said they have had trouble obtaining a broad range of parts needed to maintain their fleets. Parts in short supply included small hardware like nuts and bolts as well as specialized items like cockpit windows and engine components.Why GAO Did This StudyAviation manufacturing is a major economic driver in the United States, with the largest trade balance (exports minus imports) among all U.S. manufacturing sectors. A global network of manufacturers and suppliers provides the aircraft and components that airlines in the United States rely on to support their operations. Aircraft manufacturers and their suppliers have faced headwinds in recent years, including steep declines in orders for new aircraft and supply chain disruptions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. As airlines respond to the rebound in demand for air travel that began in 2021, aviation manufacturers' ability to provide new aircraft and parts is key to airlines' efforts to maintain and grow their operations.GAO was asked to examine challenges facing the aviation manufacturing supply chain. This report describes (1) what is known about demand for and production of new aircraft and parts since 2020, (2) factors affecting manufacturers' production of new aircraft and parts and actions to mitigate these factors, and (3) how airlines have been affected by the availability of new aircraft and parts to support their operations.GAO analyzed data on new aircraft orders and deliveries from Boeing and Airbus along with data on aircraft production from Aviation Week Network for 2013 through 2023. GAO interviewed a non-generalizable sample of 38 stakeholders—including manufacturers and airlines—who were selected to achieve a range of perspectives.For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov.
- Trusted Traveler Programs: DHS Has Enrollment Processes, but CBP Should Provide Additional Information on Reconsiderations What GAO FoundThe Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operate five distinct trusted traveler programs—(1) TSA PreCheck® and CBP's (2) Global Entry, (3) NEXUS, (4) Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), and (5) Free and Secure Trade (FAST). These programs allow for expedited screening or inspection of preapproved, low-risk travelers at certain domestic and international airports and at select land and sea ports of entry. TSA and CBP have enrolled millions of travelers to these programs through a multi-step process that generally includes an online application, traveler vetting, and an enrollment eligibility decision. In fiscal year 2020 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2023, TSA enrolled or renewed TSA PreCheck® memberships for over 99 percent of applications, and CBP enrolled or renewed membership for over 97 percent of applications across its four programs.NEXUS Lane at the U.S. Port of Entry in Blaine, Washington TSA and CBP have reconsideration processes for travelers denied or revoked from a trusted traveler program. TSA informs travelers of its decision in a letter that includes steps for pursuing reconsideration—known as a “correction of record”—if travelers believe TSA based its decision on incorrect or incomplete information. CBP also informs travelers of its decision via a letter that includes steps for pursuing reconsideration. The CBP Ombudsman has sole discretion to sustain or overturn denial or revocation decisions, based on the totality of circumstances and any new information that the traveler has provided.While CBP notifies travelers of denial and revocation decisions through letters posted to its online portal, it does not include instructions—required by regulation—for seeking additional information on the reason for its denial decision. According to CBP officials, the agency changed the format of its letters in 2018 when it updated its online portal and inadvertently removed these instructions. By providing these instructions, CBP could improve travelers' understanding of the specific reason for the decision, as appropriate, and could better ensure that travelers are able to directly address the reason for their denial or revocation when pursuing reconsideration.Why GAO Did This StudyThe summer of 2023 marked one of the busiest travel seasons on record. According to Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) data, each day approximately 2.5 million passengers boarded a commercial flight, and approximately 1.1 million travelers entered the U.S. through a port of entry during that period.Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review the DHS trusted traveler programs and reconsideration process. This report addresses (1) DHS's trusted traveler programs and enrollments and (2) the extent to which DHS provides reconsideration for travelers it denied or revoked from its programs.GAO analyzed relevant regulations, policies, and program data from fiscal year 2020 through the second quarter of 2023; interviewed headquarters and field officials involved in the trusted traveler programs; and conducted in-person and virtual site visits to CBP enrollment centers that processed the highest volume of program applications in fiscal year 2022. While not generalizable, these visits provided program insights.
- Aviation Security: Transportation Security Administration Could Further Improve Officer Engagement What GAO FoundLeadership of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has identified the need to improve employee engagement—their sense of purpose in their job—as central to the agency's security mission. According to the Office of Personnel Management, engaged employees are more innovative, productive, and committed in their jobs, and thus less likely to leave. GAO found that five key drivers affect the engagement of TSA's Transportation Security Officers (TSO), who comprise the majority of TSA employees.&nbsp;TSA has taken actions to address all five key drivers. However, challenges related to each persist. For example, to address TSO concerns with managing and recognizing performance, TSA began requiring supervisors to take a 1-hour performance management course in 2018. In 2021, it set up two programs to reward top performance. However, these actions did not fully address the root causes of TSO dissatisfaction—namely, inconsistent management of TSOs' performance. By identifying and implementing actions that fully address the root causes of the driver, TSA will be better able to improve engagement. Further, TSA has not identified root causes of TSO dissatisfaction for three other drivers—career development, work-life balance, and communication. Without doing so, TSA will have difficulty implementing effective corrective actions that address the specific challenges for each of the drivers.Transportation Security Officers Gather for a Shift BriefingFor the final driver—demonstrating responsiveness to input—TSA has solicited TSO input on the root causes of low engagement at airports through a survey and other initiatives. However, TSA has not tracked follow-through on these initiatives. By tracking and monitoring follow-through on planned steps, TSA would be better able to ensure implementation and realize the desired effect of improving TSO engagement.Why GAO Did This StudyTSA employs almost 50,000 TSOs who screen passengers and their baggage at U.S. airports. TSA employees' engagement has historically ranked among the lowest within the Department of Homeland Security and across the federal government.GAO was asked to review the factors that affect TSO engagement and TSA's actions to improve it. This report examines (1) the key drivers that affect engagement and (2) the extent to which TSA has taken actions to address them.GAO analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results from 2020 through 2023, reviewed agency guidance and documentation on TSA's actions to improve engagement, and interviewed human capital officials. GAO interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of TSOs, their supervisors, and senior leaders at five airports selected to capture variation in levels of employee engagement. GAO also interviewed five employee groups, including the union that represents TSOs.
- Ridesharing and Taxi Safety: Information on Assaults against Drivers and Passengers What GAO FoundRidesourcing (also referred to as ridesharing) and taxi services help meet the transportation needs of many people in the U.S.Taxi and Ridesourcing Transportation ServicesThere is no federal requirement to collect data specifically on assaults against drivers and passengers of ridesourcing vehicles and taxis. Some federal and non-federal sources collect data on such assaults, but the available data cannot fully describe the extent of assaults in these industries. Several factors result in the data not being comparable or complete for this purpose. These factors include the varied intended uses of the collected data, the use of different definitions and codes, and underreporting of assaults. More specifically:Six federal databases contain some information on assaults in the ridesourcing and taxi industries. These databases contain more data about assaults against drivers than against passengers. Although limitations exist with these data, a few databases provide some data that can be used to report on assaults against drivers for 2019 and 2020. For example, a census of occupational fatalities reported 19 fatal injuries or illnesses of workers in the ridesourcing and taxi industries in 2019 related to assaults (i.e., intentional injuries by another person). Data for 2020 were not published because they did not meet publication criteria.	Three ridesourcing companies whose representatives GAO interviewed collect data on assaults against their drivers and passengers, and they voluntarily issue reports with information on the extent of the most serious types of assault. The companies report data on fatal physical assaults and use the same definitions to categorize the five most serious types of sexual assault. The three ridesourcing companies reported that about 4,600 incidents of the five most serious types of sexual assault occurred related to trips arranged through their digital applications (app) in 2019, the only year for which all three companies publicly reported data. The five taxi companies whose representatives GAO spoke with collect complaint and incident data, which can include assault data. The five taxi companies' representatives said these data are largely for internal purposes and are not reported publicly. Representatives from the five companies said that they have experienced few or no assaults in 2019 and 2020.Why GAO Did This StudyRidesourcing and taxi companies offer similar transportation services to the public. Ridesourcing companies connect passengers and drivers by offering pre-arranged trips through an app. Taxi companies can conduct either pre-arranged or street-hail trips. Media outlets, advocacy organizations, and others have raised questions about the safety of drivers and passengers of ridesourcing vehicles and taxis.Sami's Law, enacted in January 2023, includes a provision for GAO to conduct a study including the incidence of physical and sexual assaults against ridesourcing and taxi drivers and passengers in calendar years 2019 and 2020. This report describes the extent to which data on such assaults are collected and available.To conduct this work, GAO reviewed federal database documents, such as data dictionaries, and interviewed officials from federal agencies including the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services. GAO also examined laws, regulations, and documents on ridesourcing and taxi oversight for five states and five localities, selected based on whether they collected data and to vary in location, among other factors.In addition, GAO reviewed documents and websites for selected ridesourcing companies and selected taxi companies. GAO also interviewed representatives from three ridesourcing and five taxi companies. GAO selected these companies to ensure variation in size (e.g., revenue, number of trips) and location.For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at (202) 512-2834 or repkoe@gao.gov&nbsp;and Derrick Collins at (202) 512-8777 or collinsd@gao.gov.
- Commercial Space Transportation: FAA's Oversight of Human Spaceflight What GAO FoundThe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees commercial space operations with humans onboard under its broader licensing framework. FAA requires commercial launch operators to obtain a license before conducting any operation within U.S. borders—whether they carry humans or payloads, such as satellites. To obtain a license, operators must demonstrate that they can conduct the operation without jeopardizing the safety of the people and property not involved in the operation. FAA has additional licensing requirements for operations with humans onboard, such as crew training and the ability to suppress cabin fire. These requirements are intended to address risk to the uninvolved public. FAA is currently prohibited from issuing regulations directed at protecting the safety of humans onboard, with some exceptions, due to a moratorium that Congress established in 2004 to limit certain regulatory burdens on an emerging industry. This moratorium is set to expire on March 8, 2024.Number of U.S. Commercial Space Operations, 2018 – 2023FAA is preparing for expanded oversight of human spaceflight—if the moratorium were to expire—by working with industry to develop future regulations and building FAA's workforce capacity. For example, FAA:chartered a rulemaking committee in April 2023 to solicit industry's input on a future regulatory framework aimed at protecting the safety of humans onboard, and	is leveraging the expertise of current staff and recruiting new staff to support human spaceflight safety efforts.However, FAA has ongoing hiring challenges and workforce constraints, which have affected these efforts. For example, FAA reported it did not receive an adequate candidate pool for four of the 10 human spaceflight-related positions for which it has been actively recruiting. To help address this challenge, officials said in February 2024 that they are devising a new recruitment strategy for these positions.Why GAO Did This StudyThe number of commercial launch and reentry operations carrying humans is a small proportion of the overall number of commercial space operations—about 10 percent in 2023—but it is growing. This growth has been driven both by space tourism and by government missions conducted by commercial launch and reentry operators. This includes transporting National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts to and from the International Space Station. FAA forecasts that the number of commercial operations with humans onboard will continue to increase over the next several years.GAO was asked to review issues related to FAA's oversight of commercial launch and reentry operations with humans. This report describes how FAA (1) oversees the safety of commercial operations with humans onboard, and (2) is preparing for expanded oversight of human spaceflight, which may include regulations directed at protecting the health and safety of humans onboard.GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and FAA and industry documentation. GAO interviewed FAA officials and conducted semi-structured interviews with all seven launch operators that, as of December 2022 (during GAO's review), had conducted or planned to conduct operations with humans before 2026.For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or KrauseH@gao.gov.
- Coast Guard: Enhanced Safety Oversight Needed for Fish Tender Vessels What GAO FoundUnder U.S. law, certain fish tender vessels are subject to load line and stability requirements to ensure their safety in different waters, including by reducing their likelihood of capsizing.A fish tender vessel supplies and transports fish from a catcher vessel to a processing facility.	A load line ensures a vessel's overall seaworthiness and includes maintaining certain structural features such as watertight closures.Example of Load Line Markings on a Fish Tender VesselThe Coast Guard's data system captures information on the activities of commercial fishing industry vessels but does not capture data on vessels engaging in multiple service types, such as both catching and tendering fish. As a result, the Coast Guard is unable to generate a reliable list of fish tender vessels to identify which vessels are subject to load line requirements and the extent they have been in accidents. By assessing the feasibility of updating its system to capture multiple service types, the Coast Guard will be better positioned to oversee fish tender vessels.In 2015, the Coast Guard recognized that some vessels that were operating as part-time fish tender vessels were not in compliance with load line requirements. In August 2019, the Coast Guard created a task force that proposed an alternative compliance program that would exempt certain fish tender vessels from load line requirements while still providing an appropriate level of oversight. The task force paused its work after May 2022 without (1) fully assessing the safety risks posed to vessels participating in such a program, and (2) clearly identifying the proposed program's legal basis. Should the Coast Guard pursue implementation of a program, fully assessing the safety risks posed to fish tender vessels without a load line can help it ensure that any proposed alternative compliance program maximizes vessel safety within existing resource limitations. By clearly identifying a legal basis for the program, the Coast Guard can better ensure that any proposed program is consistent with its legal authorities.Why GAO Did This StudyCommercial fishing is an important part of the economy, yet one of the most hazardous occupations in the U.S. The U.S. Coast Guard is the primary federal agency responsible for marine safety, which includes enforcing safety requirements for fish tender vessels.The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to load line requirements for fish tender vessels. This report addresses: (1) the load line and stability requirements for fish tender vessels; and the extent the Coast Guard (2) collected data on the activities of commercial fishing industry vessels in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest as they pertain to tendering and what its data show, and (3) addressed fish tender vessel noncompliance with load line requirements.GAO assessed relevant statutes, regulations, and Coast Guard documentation and data; and interviewed officials from the Coast Guard and commercial fishing industry (such as seafood companies and industry associations).
- Oil and Gas Pipelines: Agencies Should Improve Oversight of Decommissioning What GAO FoundGathering pipelines carry natural gas, crude oil, and other hazardous liquids from production wells to processing facilities, refineries, and transmission pipelines. Pipeline operators should decommission gathering lines after oil and gas production has ended to ensure any remaining gathering lines are safe and to restore the land to its natural state. If operators do not decommission gathering lines properly or in a timely manner, they could pose various safety and environmental risks, including spills, emissions, and explosions. For example, in 2017, homeowners accidentally struck an improperly decommissioned gathering line on their property, causing an explosion that killed two people and injured two others.Examples of Gathering Lines and Associated InfrastructureAgency efforts to ensure proper decommissioning may be hindered by insufficient bonding, data limitations, and ambiguous requirements. For example, the Bureau of Land Management has detailed data for the more than 95,000 wells on federal leases, but its databases do not include any data for the gathering lines associated with those wells.While agencies have taken steps to improve the data they have on gathering lines, those steps have been ad hoc. None of the agencies has a documented plan to ensure they are collecting and maintaining the data needed to oversee decommissioning activities. Developing a plan with a timeline for implementing data improvement efforts would provide management the assurance that officials are collecting and maintaining the data needed to oversee decommissioning. Specifically, a documented plan would identify what data are needed, potential sources for the data, timelines to collect or acquire the data, and how best to maintain the data over time, ensuring that they remain current and accessible.The federal government has previously stepped in to decommission orphaned gathering lines—lines without an identifiable responsible party. However, agencies have limited resources. While the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided additional funding, agencies told us that the act's funding will not be sufficient to decommission all orphaned infrastructure. For example, Forest Service officials said that even if all of the $250 million in the act were provided solely to Forest Service, those funds would allow for decommissioning of only 5 percent to 10 percent of the known and expected orphaned infrastructure on Forest Service lands.Agencies need to analyze the risks associated with gathering lines they oversee. For the four agencies, we found that only the National Park Service has assessed the potential risks of gathering lines it oversees. Assessing risks would allow agencies to adequately prioritize those gathering lines that pose the greatest safety, environmental, or fiscal risks for either oversight attention if lines are active, or decommissioning if lines are orphaned.Why GAO Did This StudyOil and gas pipeline operators have installed at least 384,000 miles of onshore gathering lines across the United States. We were asked to review issues related to decommissioning oil and gas gathering lines on federal lands. This report examines the risks associated with gathering lines that are not decommissioned properly or in a timely manner and how agencies oversee decommissioning of gathering lines on federal lands.We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies, and guidance related to overseeing decommissioning pipelines. We also conducted a literature search to assess risks associated with improper decommissioning. We interviewed agency headquarters and field office officials, as well as state agency officials, representatives from the oil and gas industry, environmental advocacy groups, and pipeline safety organizations.
- Surface Transportation Threats: Better Communication with Stakeholders Needed about the Security Clearance Process What GAO FoundThe Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS I&amp;A) allocated field-based intelligence staff to locations with higher-risk surface transportation assets. TSA and DHS I&amp;A considered surface transportation security risks differently when doing so because each took into account their other mission priorities. Though their approaches differed, in fiscal year 2023, TSA and DHS I&amp;A each allocated field-based intelligence staff to approximately half of the 62 geographic areas with higher-risk surface transportation assets. According to TSA and DHS I&amp;A officials, the remaining locations with higher-risk surface transportation assets that did not have field-based intelligence staff located within the geographic area were supported by field-based intelligence staff in other locations.Surface Transportation ModesDHS made the security clearance application process available to surface transportation stakeholders, but some misunderstood aspects of the process. DHS and its entities—TSA, DHS I&amp;A, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—have applicable policies and other guidance. However, agency officials, field-based intelligence staff, and surface transportation stakeholders GAO interviewed misunderstood how some aspects were applied, specifically as they related to accessing the security clearance application process. For example, some misunderstood which DHS entity was responsible for initiating applications for surface transportation owners and operators, whether there was a maximum number each would sponsor, and the type of employee eligible. Implementing a coordinated communications approach could help ensure relevant agency staff, as well as surface transportation stakeholders, have consistent and accurate information about the security clearance application process and ultimately facilitate classified information sharing when the need arises. Each DHS entity is responsible for ensuring its own staff have accurate information about the security clearance process. Further, as the lead agency for sharing transportation security-related information, TSA would be best positioned to coordinate the communications approach for sharing information with surface transportation owners and operators and external stakeholders about accessing the security clearance application process.Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. surface transportation system comprises multiple modes of transportation and moves billions of passengers and millions of tons of goods each year. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes provisions for DHS to take steps to enhance surface transportation security through information sharing. Steps include allocating intelligence staff to locations with higher-risk assets and making security clearance applications available to surface transportation stakeholders. The act includes a provision for GAO to review implementation of these steps.This report describes (1) how and where TSA and DHS I&amp;A allocated field-based intelligence staff and (2) the extent to which DHS made the security clearance application process available to surface transportation stakeholders, among other topics. GAO analyzed TSA and DHS I&amp;A documents and data, including staff allocations for fiscal year 2023, conducted site visits to areas with higher-risk surface transportation assets, and interviewed agency officials and surface transportation stakeholders.
- International Trade: USTR Should Improve Coordination on New Automotive Rules of Origin What GAO FoundAgencies used three key mechanisms to coordinate the implementation, verification, and enforcement of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement's (USMCA) new rules of origin for automotive goods:The Interagency Autos Committee, chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), provides advice about and monitoring of the USMCA provisions regarding automotive goods.	The USMCA Center provided guidance to stakeholders and facilitated verification activities from its inception in March 2020 to its closure in February 2023.	Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Labor (DOL) jointly developed guidance and shared information on certification and verification processes to ensure the value of the labor content of goods (Labor Value Content, or LVC) conforms to requirements.GAO evaluated the effectiveness of ongoing coordination against selected leading collaboration practices identified in prior GAO work.GAO's Leading Interagency Collaboration PracticesIn its efforts to coordinate on the implementation, enforcement, and verification of new automotive rules of origin, the Interagency Autos Committee generally followed six of the eight leading collaboration practices, as identified in GAO's prior work. However, the committee partially followed two other practices. For example, the committee had not developed written guidance to help ensure accountability. Clearly articulated written guidance could improve communication, limit uncertainty for agencies and stakeholders, and aid in the monitoring of progress toward committee outcomes.CBP and DOL have generally followed all eight of the leading collaboration practices during their implementation of the LVC certification process and planning for LVC verifications. Their LVC guidance details the agencies' roles and responsibilities, as well as other leading collaboration practices, for these two processes. In addition, GAO found that no significant interagency coordination takes place for enforcement of the new rules of origin, because CBP alone conducts those activities. According to officials, CBP has not yet enforced some of the requirements because the final set of rules of origin regulations are awaiting approval.Why GAO Did This StudyThe USMCA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, entered into force in July 2020. According to agency officials and industry stakeholders, this change was significant because it strengthened the rules of origin for automotive goods with a potentially widespread effect on trade. USMCA implementing legislation includes a provision for GAO to review the effectiveness of U.S. interagency coordination on implementation, enforcement, and verification of the automotive rules of origin, and the customs procedures of the USMCA with respect to automotive goods.In this report, GAO examines (1) what mechanisms U.S. agencies use to coordinate on the new rules of origin; and (2) the extent to which relevant agencies are effectively coordinating the implementation, enforcement, and verification of the new rules and customs procedures. GAO reviewed legislation and documents, interviewed agency and labor and industry stakeholders, and analyzed responses from nine agencies that participate on the Interagency Autos Committee against leading interagency collaboration practices, identified in prior GAO work.
- Commuter Rail: Agencies' Estimates of Operations and Maintenance Costs for Positive Train Control What GAO FoundCommuter railroads incur costs to implement and operate positive train control (PTC)—a system which can prevent collisions and other types of accidents. However, they are not required to report those costs separately from other operations and maintenance (O&amp;M) costs. Most of the 26 commuter rail agencies that responded to GAO's survey reported that it was challenging to identify prior years' PTC O&amp;M costs, because they are integrated into other O&amp;M costs. Agencies reported that isolating PTC O&amp;M costs is complicated, because (1) PTC technology is overlaid on existing systems and (2) employees' PTC O&amp;M-related tasks are not tracked separately from other tasks, among other reasons. For example, 25 of the 26 commuter rail agencies reported their PTC systems were overlaid on other systems; 12 of these also reported that this made it extremely or very challenging to estimate PTC-specific O&amp;M costs. Moreover, some commuter rail agencies said it can be challenging to project their future PTC O&amp;M costs due to uncertainties such as the timing—and therefore cost—of certain software or hardware upgrades. Despite these challenges, 17 of the 26 agencies were able to provide GAO complete estimates or projections for fiscal years 2022 through 2025 by, for example, reviewing invoices for materials or discussing costs with their Information Technology specialists.Of the 17 agencies that provided complete estimates, a majority spent 5 percent or less of their total operating costs on PTC O&amp;M in fiscal year 2022. These 17 estimates ranged from less than 1 percent to 12 percent, with a median of about 4 percent (see fig.). In addition, the majority (15 of 17) projected that their PTC O&amp;M costs would increase between fiscal years 2023 and 2025.Distribution of Estimated Commuter Rail Positive Train Control Operations and Maintenance Costs as Percentage of Total Operating Costs for Fiscal Year 2022To understand the relationship between PTC O&amp;M costs and agency size, GAO analyzed ridership and route miles in PTC operation and found that these factors were moderately to strongly associated with fiscal year 2022 PTC O&amp;M costs. Specifically, commuter rail agencies with higher ridership or more route miles in PTC operation tended to have higher PTC O&amp;M costs. However, GAO cannot make conclusions about whether these factors influenced PTC O&amp;M costs, because this study did not control for other factors such as PTC type.Why GAO Did This StudyAcross the country, commuter rail brings people to work, school, medical appointments, and recreational activities. Commuter railroads are among the railroads required to implement PTC.The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to examine commuter rail PTC O&amp;M costs. This report describes (1) the challenges commuter rail agencies reported facing in determining their annual PTC O&amp;M costs for fiscal years 2020–2025, and the extent to which they were able to estimate these costs; and (2) what commuter rail agencies estimated as their PTC O&amp;M costs.To obtain information on commuter rail agencies' PTC O&amp;M costs, GAO surveyed all 29 public commuter rail agencies required to implement PTC, and 26 responded. Survey questions related to the challenges agencies face trying to estimate PTC costs as well as questions about agencies' existing PTC cost estimates. GAO checked survey responses for reporting errors and conducted follow-up with commuter rail agencies based on their survey responses. GAO developed descriptive statistics for the ranges of costs and compared the costs to the size of the agency and to its total O&amp;M costs.For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at (202) 512-2834 or repkoe@gao.gov.
- Discretionary Transportation Grants: DOT Should Improve Transparency in the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America Program What GAO FoundIn September 2022, the Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded $1.5 billion in discretionary grants to fund nationally and regionally significant freight and highway projects through the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program. In fiscal year 2022, DOT combined some phases of the INFRA grant award process with those of two other discretionary grant programs. Specifically, DOT issued a single notice of funding opportunity to solicit applications. DOT also created a combined evaluation plan that outlined the criteria and process for evaluating applications for all three programs. Once applications were evaluated, award selections were made separately for each grant program.Example of a Highway Construction ProjectDOT has taken steps to improve its processes for evaluating and selecting INFRA applications for award. For example, DOT implemented and documented an evaluation process as required by guidance and created a new quality control process. DOT also created a new memo to better explain the Secretary's award decisions, which provides insight into why the applications chosen for award were selected over similarly situated applications.However, DOT's evaluation and selection processes did not fully align with requirements set out in federal guidance. For example, DOT did not fully document eligibility determinations and reviewer conflict-of-interest screenings. Improving its documentation would help DOT ensure it is using accurate and complete information. Additionally, DOT did not clearly define the criteria used to advance applications to the Secretary for possible selection, specifically how projects could be deemed “exemplary.” Providing such information would help applicants understand how they will be evaluated and ensure reviewers advance applications using consistent criteria. These actions would also position DOT to more fully demonstrate that it is implementing the program with enhanced transparency and making fair grant award decisions.Why GAO Did This StudyThe INFRA program—a DOT discretionary grant program—funds nationally significant freight and highway projects. From 2016 through 2022, DOT awarded over $7 billion to fund such projects across the country.The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to review DOT's process for evaluating and selecting INFRA projects for award. This report examines DOT's processes to solicit, evaluate, and select applications for INFRA grant awards in fiscal year 2022; and the extent to which DOT's evaluation and selection processes aligned with federal guidance. GAO reviewed DOT's notice of funding opportunity, evaluation plan, and documentation of the INFRA fiscal year 2022 evaluation process; analyzed application and award data; and interviewed DOT officials. GAO also reviewed the documentation of 50 applications, including the 26 applications that received an award.
- Aviation Certification: FAA Should Evaluate   Effectiveness of the International Validation Process What GAO FoundU.S. companies export billions of dollars' worth of aviation products, such as airplanes and engines, each year. These products require safety approval from both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the importing countries' civil aviation authorities (CAA). Bilateral agreements between the U.S. and countries representing the five largest aviation export markets aim to facilitate these approvals through acceptance or validation of each other's product certifications. The approval processes laid out in the implementing procedures for these agreements vary depending on the product's type and complexity. For example, CAA's conduct detailed technical validations for higher risk products with new designs or technologies. These validations can involve extensive review of product designs and other information for the CAA to assess compliance with its own country's regulations and safety and environmental standards.Five Largest Export Markets for U.S. Aviation Products, 2019-2021Note: Percentages reflect portion of U.S. total aviation exports. The European Union figure excludes the United Kingdom due to its exit from the European Union in 2020.The fourteen stakeholders GAO interviewed reported that in recent years, validation time frames have become unpredictable as CAAs have requested more data from aviation manufacturers. Stakeholders cited contributing factors, including CAAs' decreased trust in FAA's certifications after the Boeing 737 MAX 8 accidents in 2018 and 2019. They said that receiving FAA's support—including resolving disputes with other countries' CAAs—can also be challenging due to limited FAA staffing and resources.FAA recently began collecting and using more detailed information to improve its management of international validations, such as tracking the number of active validations by country. However, FAA has not evaluated the effectiveness of the validations process as a whole. FAA officials said they are beginning to develop an approach for assessing the process, including identifying performance goals and needed data. However, FAA has not yet identified specific steps or a time frame for developing the approach. Assessing the validations process could help FAA identify improvements that might lead to increased predictability in the process and improved accountability to bilateral agreements.Why GAO Did This StudyFor many years, the U.S. has entered into bilateral agreements with certain other countries to facilitate acceptance of each other's certifications of aviation products. However, U.S. companies continue to report experiencing difficulties in obtaining approvals of their products in other countries.GAO was asked to review the approvals process for U.S. aviation products. This report (1) describes the processes that FAA and CAAs in the most significant export markets for U.S. aviation products use to approve each other's product certifications, (2) examines validation challenges stakeholders identified, and (3) evaluates how FAA ensures that the international validations process is effective. GAO selected five international markets based on the number of validations and reviewed selected bilateral agreements and implementation procedures, FAA data, and FAA's validation policies and guidance. GAO also interviewed 14 aviation industry stakeholders and CAA officials from three countries.
- Vehicle Safety: Opportunities to Improve Repair Rates for Recalled Vehicles What GAO FoundGAO found five primary factors that influence vehicle recall repair rates (see fig.).Primary Factors That Influence Vehicle Owners to Respond to Safety Defect Recalls, according to Literature Review and IntervieweesThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has conducted research that identified factors similar to those found by GAO. However, NHTSA has not updated this research and does not have plans to do so. Regularly updating this research could allow NHTSA to maintain more up-to-date information on the factors and enable the agency to respond accordingly. For example, technological developments, such as over-the-air technologies, can change these factors. NHTSA officials told GAO that they are seeing a growing number of recalls that can be repaired with over-the-air software updates.NHTSA and manufacturers collaborate with third parties to improve recall repair rates (see fig.). However, NHTSA has not fully implemented a lessons-learned process to analyze and document lessons learned across all collaborations. As a result, NHTSA may be losing valuable insights that could improve repair rates and help the agency work toward its vision of achieving a 100 percent repair rate for every recall.Examples of Collaborations the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Vehicle Manufacturers Have Engaged in to Improve Vehicle Recall Completion RatesWhy GAO Did This StudyNHTSA is responsible for overseeing recalls when a defect in a vehicle creates an unreasonable safety risk. In 2021, NHTSA reported that 69 percent of passenger vehicles recalled in 2018 had been repaired. High-profile recalls over the last decade highlighted the importance of repairing recalls.The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to study vehicle recall repair rates. This report examines (1) the primary factors that influence vehicle recall repairs, and the extent to which NHTSA has conducted research to identify these factors; and (2) how NHTSA has identified lessons learned from efforts to collaborate with third parties to improve recall repair rates, among other objectives.To identify factors, GAO reviewed literature, such as academic studies. To determine how NHTSA has identified lessons learned from collaborative efforts, GAO reviewed documents, such as after-action reports about the Takata air bag recall. GAO interviewed NHTSA officials. GAO also interviewed 27 industry entities—selected based on the literature review, recommendations of other interviewees, and other factors.
- U.S. Postal Service: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Workforce Diversity Efforts What GAO FoundThe diversity of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) workforce has increased in recent years, including among its executive leaders. However, GAO's analysis—which controlled for factors such as employee tenure—found that White, non-Hispanic or Latino, and male employees generally had more positive career outcomes in USPS management than other demographic groups. For example, Hispanic or Latino employees' likelihood of promotion to middle manager roles was 28 percent less than their non-Hispanic or Latino counterparts. For Black or African American and Asian employees, the likelihood of promotion to middle manager roles was about 40 to 50 percent less than their White counterparts. In contrast, Black or African American and Asian managers were almost twice as likely as their White counterparts to be promoted to executive positions. GAO's analysis of management pay, which also controlled for relevant factors, found that many historically disadvantaged racial or ethnic groups, as well as women and employees with disabilities, earned 1 to 7 percent less than their counterparts, who were White, non-Hispanic or Latino, men, and employees without disabilities, respectively.In each of its annual reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from 2016 through 2022, USPS identified some triggers to achieving workforce diversity. However, lack of applicants' demographic information, which is voluntarily provided by job and promotion applicants, limited USPS's ability to identify actual barriers. USPS is developing a new data system but does not have a plan for how it will use the data.U.S. Postal Service's Diversity Practices Compared to Diversity Management Leading PracticesUSPS met or mostly met five of the nine leading practices GAO previously identified for diversity management in the workplace. For example, establishing an Executive Diversity Council was among USPS actions that demonstrated top leadership commitment. USPS partially met the remaining four leading practices. For example, while its 10-year strategic plan highlights USPS's commitment to diversity, the plan does not specify performance measures for achieving that end. Developing specific diversity-related performance measures could help USPS track its progress and identify areas where adjustments to its diversity program, practices, and policies may be warranted. In addition, USPS has developed advisory boards to facilitate USPS's workforce diversity efforts, but membership of those boards consists only of senior USPS leaders. Gathering employee feedback from all career levels and different affinity groups could help USPS better assess progress towards its goal of a diverse and inclusive workforce.Why GAO Did This StudyUSPS reports it employs one of the most diverse workforces in the nation. However, USPS has faced challenges ensuring its leadership reflects the diversity of its workforce and the U.S.GAO was asked to examine USPS's efforts to develop a diverse workforce. This report examines career outcomes for demographic groups in USPS management. It also addresses the extent to which USPS has identified barriers to achieving workforce diversity and met leading diversity management practices, among other objectives.GAO used USPS data from fiscal years 2016 through 2022 to analyze career outcomes (promotions, pay, and separations) in management by demographic groups. GAO's analyses do not completely explain the reasons for differences in career outcomes, which may result from various unobservable factors. Thus, GAO's analyses do not establish a causal relationship between demographic characteristics and career outcomes. GAO reviewed USPS reports submitted to the EEOC and assessed USPS's actions against diversity management leading practices. GAO interviewed EEOC and USPS officials.
- Commercial Space Transportation: FAA Should Improve Its Mishap Investigation Process What GAO FoundFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public.FAA is generally the lead agency for mishap investigations, according to FAA data, while coordinating with other agencies through various arrangements. Both FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have authority to investigate FAA-licensed commercial space mishaps, and they recently signed a new agreement to aid in managing their authorities. These agencies, plus the Department of the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, also have other collaborative mechanisms to address mishaps.When mishaps occur, FAA can conduct an investigation itself or instead authorize launch operators to lead investigations of their own mishaps under FAA oversight, according to FAA. In practice, however, FAA has authorized operator-led investigations for all mishaps where it had lead investigative authority, GAO found. Agency procedures cite individual circumstances of a mishap as the basis for authorizing an operator-led investigation. However, FAA has not developed criteria to ensure it is appropriately making such determinations. FAA has taken some steps to improve mishap investigations, such as contracting for independent reviews of some operator-led investigations. However, GAO found that FAA has not evaluated the effectiveness of its operator-reliant process. Although stakeholders generally told GAO they support FAA's investigation process, some expressed concerns whether operators can credibly investigate their own mishaps. Without a comprehensive evaluation of its mishap investigation process, FAA cannot be assured its process is effective, especially given the expansion of commercial space operations in recent years.There is currently no formal mechanism for sharing safety lessons learned, but informal channels have developed among federal agencies and the industry. Previous efforts by FAA to create a formal system were unsuccessful, but FAA officials said they are making a new attempt, including by consulting an advisory committee. NTSB has previously recommended establishing such a system.Commercial Space Launches, 2000-2022Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. commercial space transportation industry, which provides launch and other services for government and private customers, has grown rapidly in recent years. Growth is expected to continue, as commercial space activities expand into new areas. FAA's focus, among other things, is protecting the “uninvolved public”—members of the public not involved in commercial space operations but at risk if something goes awry.GAO was asked to review safety oversight of the industry. This report examines 1) commercial space mishaps from 2000 to mid-January 2023, 2) roles and responsibilities of federal agencies in investigating commercial space transportation mishaps, 3) FAA's mishap investigation process and areas for improvement, and 4) efforts by FAA and others to share safety lessons learned.GAO examined data on commercial space flights and mishaps; examined documentation from FAA and other relevant federal agencies; and interviewed federal agency officials, executives of launch operators, and other stakeholders.
- Railroad Retirement Board: Agency Could Strengthen Plans to Address Key Management Challenges What GAO FoundThe Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has taken some promising steps, in alignment with key practices, towards addressing its management challenges. However, some work remains.Risk management process.  RRB has begun implementing an enterprise risk management (ERM) process, which is a decision-making tool that allows agencies to review and manage program and financial risks. It involves several essential elements and related key practices that fit together in a continuous process. RRB has mostly or partially implemented key practices for the first two essential elements and is beginning to implement key practices for the third (see figure). For example, to help address the second element, identifying risks, RRB trained staff to identify and report on program risks, such as not processing timely and accurate retirement applications. RRB also created tools for staff to use to report risks. However, RRB does not have a written plan for completing its ERM implementation. With such a plan, RRB will be better positioned to measure progress toward completing the process. In addition, a written plan could help RRB better use the risk information it collects to target and address serious program and financial risks.Essential Elements of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Implemented by RRBaaShading indicates the essential elements that the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) mostly or partially implemented.Human capital and planning for post-COVID workplace needs.  RRB's human capital plans and efforts to date have incorporated all key practices for effective strategic workforce planning. For example, RRB analyzed expected employee attrition and used this information to target hiring and training needs. RRB is also revising its telework policies in light of COVID and assessing its space needs to downsize its headquarters, among other things.IT modernization. RRB assessed its IT needs and laid out a broad strategy for improvements that align with its strategic goals. For example, RRB plans to develop online tools for customers to file benefit applications and update information. However, RRB's IT modernization plans do not incorporate some key information management practices. For example, the agency has not developed plans that clearly state when its IT modernization efforts will be complete or the extent to which it will update its IT systems. In addition, RRB has not developed performance metrics and goals for measuring progress of its modernization efforts. In the absence of plans with clear metrics and goals, RRB may be unable to measure the success of its efforts and adjust approaches as needed.Why GAO Did This StudyRRB administers retirement, disability, Medicare, and other benefits to railroad workers and their families. GAO and RRB's Inspector General have identified challenges to RRB's ability to effectively carry out its mission. These include difficulty overseeing financial and program integrity, a looming wave of retirements, and aging IT systems.The explanatory statement accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, includes a provision for GAO to conduct a management review of RRB. This report examines the extent to which RRB has addressed its key operational challenges by (1) implementing a process to oversee and manage program and financial risks, (2) assessing its human capital and post-COVID workplace needs, and (3) modernizing its IT infrastructure.GAO identified key practices from GAO's prior work and OMB guidance and assessed RRB's progress against these key practices. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; RRB policies, plans and documents; OMB policies, and related GAO reports. GAO also interviewed officials from RRB.
- Air Traffic Control Modernization: Program Management Improvements Could Help FAA Address NextGen Delays and Challenges What GAO FoundSince 2018, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made mixed progress meeting milestones in its ongoing effort to modernize air traffic management, known as the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This mixed progress, across four critical program areas, has slowed FAA's NextGen efforts to improve the safety and efficiency of air travel and address growing congestion in the national airspace. For example, FAA beat its milestone for deploying more reliable digital communication services at air traffic control towers. However, it did not deploy initial services to all 20 facilities serving en route flights by its September 2021 milestone. As of August 2023, FAA had not completed the deployment of those services at eight en route facilities. FAA also extended milestones for systems to improve flight spacing and sequencing. FAA reported that COVID-19 played a large part in missed milestones, delaying, for example, system testing and training.Expected Improvements under the Next Generation Air Transportation SystemFAA's efforts to implement NextGen fully or substantially met four leading practices for program management. For example, FAA has a lessons learned database and a program roadmap in line with these practices. However, closer adherence to five other practices could better position the agency to manage the program. For example, the agency has not updated NextGen life-cycle cost estimates since 2017. Doing so could help FAA better assess budget needs and refine annual budget requests, as well as measure its performance against the life-cycle cost estimate. In addition, FAA does not have a NextGen risk mitigation plan that identifies and prioritizes the highest programmatic risks or contains detailed risk alternatives analyses to mitigate identified risks. Such a plan could better equip FAA in its efforts to address the greatest risks and challenges to NextGen.Why GAO Did This StudyNextGen is FAA's multi-decade program to increase the safety and efficiency of air travel by transitioning from a ground-based air-traffic control system that uses radar, to a system based on satellite navigation and digital communications. Through fiscal year 2022, FAA reported spending just over $14 billion on NextGen. FAA projected that it would cost the federal government and industry at least $35 billion through 2030.GAO was asked to examine NextGen progress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other objectives, this report 1) describes FAA's progress in meeting NextGen 2018-2022 implementation milestones and how COVID-19 affected that progress and 2) examines the extent to which FAA's efforts to implement NextGen reflect program management leading practices. GAO focused on four critical stakeholder-identified NextGen program areas: navigation, communications, surveillance, and automation. GAO reviewed key NextGen plans, status updates, and performance reports. GAO also interviewed FAA officials and a range of aviation stakeholders to obtain diverse perspectives.
- Discretionary Transportation Grants: DOT Should Better Align Its Application Evaluation Process with Federal Guidance What GAO FoundIn fiscal year 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded $2.25 billion to 166 road, rail, and other surface transportation projects through a grant program known as Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE). DOT established a multiphase process which included evaluating applications against criteria in a merit review phase and evaluating applicant-submitted benefit-cost analyses. These analyses require applicants to show if a project expects greater benefits than costs.Fiscal Year 2022 RAISE Application Evaluation and Selection ProcessIn GAO's survey of RAISE applicants, 69 percent of capital grant applicants reported that they found developing the benefit-cost analysis very or moderately challenging. For example, some applicants told GAO they did not have the staff capacity or expertise to complete this analysis. DOT has provided guidance and webinars but has not fully reviewed if additional resources for applicants could more fully address their challenges. Addressing these challenges could help applicants more fully assess their projects' benefits and costs and give DOT the information it needs to make cost-effective award decisions.DOT's implementation of its process for evaluating RAISE applications did not fully align with federal guidance for discretionary grant programs. Specifically, GAO found that DOT did not:sufficiently assess whether evaluation teams consistently applied the merit review criteria,	consistently document decisions for advancing applications expected to have greater costs than benefits,	publicly disclose two selection factors used to make award decisions, or	consistently document a specific explanation for not selecting certain Highly Rated projects for funding.Strengthening the RAISE evaluation process in these areas would position DOT to more fully demonstrate that it is implementing the program with enhanced transparency and making fair grant award decisions.Why GAO Did This StudySince 2009, DOT has awarded over $14 billion through a discretionary grant program referred to by DOT as RAISE. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized RAISE for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 and detailed requirements for DOT to use in administering the program.The act also includes a provision for GAO to examine DOT's administration of the RAISE program. This report: (1) describes DOT's application evaluation process, (2) examines challenges applicants reported experiencing and how DOT addressed these challenges, and (3) assesses the extent to which DOT's implementation of its application evaluation process aligned with federal guidance.GAO reviewed relevant laws and DOT documents, such as RAISE's evaluation plan and meeting minutes, and interviewed DOT officials. GAO also conducted a generalizable survey of eligible fiscal year 2022 RAISE applicants. The response rate was 67 percent.
- Aviation Security: TSA Could Better Ensure Detection and Assess the Potential for Discrimination in Its Screening Technologies What GAO FoundIn December 2019, GAO reported that the performance of technologies the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses to screen passengers and baggage at airports can degrade over time. However, TSA does not ensure that such technologies continue to meet detection requirements after deployment to airports.Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Technologies Used for Checkpoint and Checked Baggage Screening TSA certifies technologies to ensure they meet requirements before deployment, and its officers are to regularly calibrate deployed technologies to demonstrate they are minimally operational. However, neither of these actions ensures that technologies continue to meet requirements after deployment. In 2015 and 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tested a sample of deployed explosives trace detection and bottled liquid scanner units and found that some no longer met detection requirements. GAO recommended that TSA develop and implement a process to ensure technologies continue to meet detection requirements after deployment. TSA began requiring reviews of technologies after deployment in 2020 and is working to update its policy. TSA has also begun to conduct reviews and report on the results.In November 2022, GAO reported that TSA officials at four selected airports and representatives from seven selected stakeholder organizations, such as the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Sikh Coalition, stated that the use of advanced imaging technology can result in certain passengers being referred for additional screening more frequently than others. These include transgender passengers and those who wear religious headwear or have disabilities. GAO recommended that TSA (1) collect data on referrals for additional screening, and (2) assess the extent to which its screening practices comply with agency non-discrimination policies. According to TSA officials, the agency has taken steps to collect data on such referrals, including the cause of additional screening, and plans to assess the data to inform the development and use of advance imaging technology.Why GAO Did This StudyTSA employs passenger and baggage screening technologies to mitigate the threat of terrorism. TSA has faced challenges ensuring these technologies consistently meet detection requirements. The agency has also faced allegations that some of its screening practices, such as the use of advanced imaging technology, may refer certain passengers more frequently to additional screening.This statement discusses TSA's efforts to (1) ensure passenger and baggage screening technologies continue to meet detection requirements after deployment and (2) assess the extent to which its use of advanced imaging technology refers certain passengers to additional screening more often than others.This statement is based primarily on reports GAO issued in December 2019 and November 2022 on detection requirements for TSA screening technologies (GAO-20-56) and TSA's efforts to ensure its passenger screening practices do not result in discrimination (GAO-23-105201). To report on actions taken to address recommendations, GAO assessed implementation reports and reviewed agency documents and responses.
- Motor Carrier Operations: Improvements Needed to Federal System for Collecting and Addressing Complaints against Truck, Moving, and Bus Companies What GAO FoundThe Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), within the Department of Transportation, maintains complaint data submitted against large commercial truck, moving, and bus companies—which are types of motor carriers. GAO found that FMCSA makes some but not all of this complaint data available to the public, which is not consistent with Department of Transportation policy. As a result, FMCSA may be missing the opportunity to improve transparency and collaboration with industry partners.Types of Vehicles Used by Motor CarriersFMCSA has not designed sufficient controls to help ensure its policy for reviewing complaints related to motor carriers is followed. For example, FMCSA's guidance is organized by seven complaint categories. However, the guidance does not define several key terms, including the complaint categories, or define how the categories align with over 100 possible allegations. Matching the allegation to a category may be challenging without definitions. As a result, FMCSA may not have adequate assurance that staff are consistently applying the appropriate complaint review guidance. Ultimately, this could affect FMCSA's ability to respond to unsafe motor company practices.GAO also found that FMCSA's public-facing complaint website partially followed leading practices for federal website design and usability. For example, the website works on frequently used web browsers and the content is organized around user-friendly topics, in line with leading practices. However, the complaint website's content is not consistently easy to view on mobile devices. According to FMCSA officials, about half of users access the website on mobile devices. Representatives of industry associations noted that mobile access is particularly important for truck drivers.FCMSA has conducted some outreach activities for its complaint website, but has not developed a plan to guide these activities. According to GAO's review, FMCSA promotes the website through the “Protect Your Move” education campaign for people who are planning interstate moves. FMCSA's outreach to other audiences—such as truck drivers—has been more limited and all five of the trucking associations GAO interviewed were not aware of such outreach. Without a plan to guide outreach activities, key target audiences may lack awareness of the complaint website, limiting FMCSA's ability to collect motor safety complaints.Why GAO Did This StudyLarge trucks and buses move billions of tons of goods and transport millions of people across the United States each year. FMCSA is responsible for reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. One way FMCSA carries out this responsibility is through its complaint website.The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision for GAO to review FMCSA's complaint website. This report examines (1) complaint data FMCSA makes public, (2) control activities FMCSA uses to review complaints, (3) how the complaint website follows leading practices, and (4) user outreach for the complaint website.GAO analyzed data from the complaint website, reviewed applicable statutes and FMCSA regulations, policy, and guidance, compared the complaint website to leading practices for federal websites, and reviewed FMCSA's actions to promote awareness of the complaint website. GAO also interviewed agency officials and representatives of industry associations.