Diesel Pollution: Fragmented Federal Programs That Reduce Mobile Source Emissions Could Be Improved
Published: 2012-02-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Exhaust from diesel engines is a harmful form of air pollution. EPA has issued emissions standards for new diesel engines and vehicles, but older mobile sources of diesel emissionssuch as trucks and busescontinue to emit harmful pollution. Programs at DOE, DOT, and EPA provide funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions, such as retrofitting existing diesel engines and vehicles. The existence of these programs at multiple agencies has raised questions about the potential for unnecessary duplication. In response to a mandate in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010, GAO examined the (1) extent of duplication, overlap, fragmentation, or gaps, if any, among federal grant, rebate, and loan programs that address mobile source diesel emissions; (2) effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions; and (3) extent of collaboration among agencies that fund these activities. GAO analyzed program data, documents, and relevant laws and regulations and interviewed agency officials. GAO also reviewed three diesel-related tax expenditures.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal grant and loan funding for activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the programs obligated at least $1.4 billion for activities that have the effect of reducing mobile source diesel emissions. The programs have varying goals and purposes; nevertheless, each program allows or requires a portion of its funding to support activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions, such as replacing fleets of older diesel trucks or school buses with natural gas vehicles. In addition, each of the 14 programs overlaps with at least one other program in the specific activities they fund, the program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding. GAO also identified several instances of duplication where more than one program provided grant funding to the same recipient for the same type of activities. However, GAO was unable to determine whether unnecessary duplication exists because of limited information on program administrative costs, among other things. GAO did not find any gaps among the programs, such as mobile sources that are not eligible for funding.
The effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions is unknown because agencies vary in the extent to which they have established performance measures. DOE and EPA have established performance measures for the strategic goals related to their programs that reduce mobile source diesel emissions. DOT has established such measures for two of its administrationsthe Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Highway Administrationbut has not established such measures for the Federal Transit Administration for two of the four strategic goals that link to its programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities. Instead, agency officials said they collect information on the current condition of the nations transit fleet, among other things, to measure the performance of its programs. As GAO has previously reported, principles of good governance indicate that agencies should establish quantifiable performance measures to demonstrate how they intend to achieve their goals and measure the extent to which they have done so. In addition, 13 of the 14 programs have purposes other than decreasing diesel emissions, and diesel reductions are a side benefit of efforts to achieve these other goals. As a result, few programs collect diesel-related performance information. Incomplete performance information may limit the ability of agencies to assess the effectiveness of their programs and activities that reduce diesel emissions.
The programs that fund activities that reduce diesel emissions generally do not collaborate because of the differing purposes and goals of each program, according to senior DOE, DOT, and EPA officials. The officials also were sometimes unaware of other programs that fund similar activities and said that any existing collaboration was on a case-by-case basis. GAOs previous work has shown that although federal programs have been designed for different purposes, coordination among programs with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and effectively meet national concerns. Further, without a coordinated approach, programs can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOTs Federal Transit Administration develop performance measures for its two relevant strategic goals and that DOE, DOT, and EPA establish a strategy for collaboration among their programs that fund activities that reduce diesel emissions. DOE and EPA agreed with the relevant recommendation, and DOE questioned several findings. DOT questioned several findings and both recommendations and neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations. GAO continues to believe in the need for the performance measures and collaboration.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Diesel engines play a vital role in public transportation, construction,  agriculture, and shipping, largely because they are more durable and  reliable than gasoline-powered engines, as well as 25 to 35 percent more  energy efficient. However, exhaust from diesel engines is a more  pervasive and harmful form of air pollution than exhaust from gasoline- powered engines. Diesel exhaust contains air pollutants such as nitrogen  oxides and particulate matter, as well as other harmful substances that  affect public health and the environment. Since 1984, the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented standards that have  progressively lowered the maximum allowable amount of certain  pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, from new  diesel engines by more than 98 percent. However, the most stringent  standards generally apply to diesel engines and vehicles built after 2007,  and EPA estimates that more than 20 million mobile sources of diesel  emissions built before 2007—13 million on-highway vehicles, 7 million  nonroad engines, and 47,000 locomotive and marine engines—continue  to emit higher amounts of harmful pollutants than newer engines.
Programs at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of  Transportation (DOT), and EPA address mobile source diesel emissions  by funding projects that, among other things, retrofit, rebuild, or replace  existing diesel engines or vehicles; install devices that reduce idling of  diesel engines; and convert diesel engines and vehicles to use cleaner  fuels, such as natural gas or propane. The existence of these programs at  multiple agencies has raised questions about the potential for  unnecessary duplication. We have previously reported that fragmentation    and overlap among government programs can lead to such duplication. Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency, or more than  one organization within an agency, is involved in the same broad area of  national need. Overlap occurs when multiple agencies and programs  have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve  them, or target similar beneficiaries. We have also reported that federal  programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes should closely  coordinate to improve their overall effectiveness.
In response to a mandate in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010,  this report examines the (1) extent to which duplication, overlap,  fragmentation, or gaps, if any, exist among federal grant, rebate, and loan  programs that address mobile source diesel emissions; (2) effectiveness  of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile source diesel  emissions; and (3) extent to which collaboration takes place among  agencies that fund activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions.
This report also provides information on tax expenditures that address  mobile source diesel emissions.
To address the first objective, we reviewed relevant statutes and  regulations; conducted a literature review; analyzed agency documents;  interviewed agency officials and industry stakeholders; and conducted  Internet searches to identify grant, rebate, and loan programs that fund  mobile source diesel emissions reduction activities. We then reviewed  agency documents and conducted structured interviews of agency  officials from each relevant DOE, DOT, and EPA program we identified.  We conducted interviews about the program’s purpose, goals, eligible  activities, target beneficiaries, and types of funding to identify areas of  duplication, overlap, or fragmentation. We also compared the types of  eligible recipients under each program with available data on the sources  of diesel emissions to identify any gaps among the programs. In addition,  we obtained and analyzed funding data from the three agencies to  estimate the total amount of federal funding for diesel emissions reduction  projects from fiscal years 2007 through 2011. We selected this period  because, by 2007, EPA had issued emissions standards for key on-road  sources, such as heavy-duty trucks and buses, as well as a rule requiring  refiners to reduce the sulfur content of—and therefore emissions from— certain diesel fuels. We reviewed documents about the underlying  databases and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials to assess the  reliability of the data for each program. We determined that the data  obtained from these agencies were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report. To respond to the second and third objectives, we reviewed  agency documents and conducted structured interviews with agency  officials about program goals and performance, coordination with other  programs, and assessments of diesel pollution, among other things. We  then compared these programs’ efforts with best practices for federal  programs that contribute to the same outcome. To identify these best  practices, we reviewed our prior work as well as relevant statutes,  including the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the  Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to February 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible for setting National Ambient  Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants considered harmful to public  health and the environment. EPA has set these standards for six such  pollutants, known as criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen  oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, ozone, and lead. Diesel exhaust  contains nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and numerous other harmful  chemicals. Exposure to nitrogen oxides can result in adverse respiratory  effects, and nitrogen oxides contribute to the formation of ozone, which  can cause respiratory illnesses, decreased lung function, and premature  death. A large body of scientific evidence links exposure to particulate  matter to serious health problems, including asthma, chronic bronchitis,  heart attack, and premature death.
Nondiesel mobile sources, industrial processes, and power plants, among other sources,  generated the remaining nitrogen oxide emissions; fossil fuel combustion, dust, and  agricultural activities, among other sources, generated the remaining particulate matter  emissions.
43 percent and 42 percent of such emissions, respectively, from diesel  engines.
EPA has progressively implemented more stringent diesel emissions  standards to lower the amount of key pollutants from mobile diesel  sources since 1984. For example, EPA regulations for heavy-duty  highway diesel engines required a 98 percent reduction from 1988  allowable levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions for  new engines built after 2009. The most recent emissions standards for  construction and agricultural equipment began to take effect in 2008 and  required a 95 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides and a 90 percent  reduction in particulate matter from previous standards, which took effect  in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, EPA issued its most recent regulations for  new marine vessels and locomotives, which EPA expects will, by 2030,  reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from the engines of these sources by  about 80 percent and particulate matter emissions by about 90 percent  compared to previous standards. Figures 1 and 2 show the effective  dates of major reductions in allowable amounts of nitrogen oxide and  particulate matter emissions from mobile diesel sources.
Owners and operators of diesel engines can undertake a variety of  activities to reduce diesel emissions, including retrofitting, rebuilding, or  replacing existing diesel engines or vehicles; installing devices that  reduce idling of diesel engines; and converting diesel engines and  vehicles to use cleaner fuels. Retrofitting existing diesel engines generally  involves the installation of emissions control devices, such as filters, on a  vehicle’s tailpipe. Rebuilding components of existing diesel engines can  return engines to their original emissions levels or involve the installation  of new technology that produces lower levels of emissions. Replacing  existing diesel engines and vehicles with newer, lower emitting engines or  vehicles can lead to significant emissions reductions, but because it is a  costly option, it may be most appropriate for the oldest, most polluting  vehicles. Devices that reduce idling of diesel engines generally allow a  vehicle’s heat, air conditioning, and other electrical equipment to run  without operation of the vehicle’s main engine. Converting diesel vehicles  and engines to use cleaner fuels can also provide significant emissions  reductions.
The Government Performance and Results Act, as amended, requires  agencies to prepare annual performance plans that contain, among other  things, a set of annual goals that establish the agencies’ intended  performance and measures that can be used to assess progress toward  achieving those goals. DOE, DOT, and EPA establish and organize these  goals and performance measures at differing agency and administrative  levels. Specifically, DOE and EPA establish strategic goals and  performance measures for each goal as part of their agencywide  performance plans. DOT establishes strategic goals as part of its  agencywide strategic plan, but the agency’s administrations—the Federal  Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal  Transit Administration, among others—generally establish their own  performance measures for assessing their programs’ contributions to the  department’s strategic goals.
section_title: Federal Funding for Activities That Reduce Diesel Emissions Is Fragmented across 14 Programs
paragraphs: Federal grant and loan funding for activities that reduce mobile source  diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs at DOE, DOT, and  EPA. Many of these programs generally target air pollution, but of the 14  programs, one—EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program—has a  specific purpose of reducing mobile source diesel emissions. The  remaining 13 programs focus on other goals or purposes, such as  supporting energy efficiency projects or reducing petroleum use.  Nevertheless, each of these programs allows or requires a portion of its  funding to support activities that have the effect of reducing mobile source  diesel emissions. For example, authorizing legislation for DOT’s  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program directs grant  recipients to give priority to certain activities, including retrofitting diesel  engines and vehicles. The 14 programs provide funding through one or  more mechanisms, including competitive grants, formula grants, and  loans. Specifically, 13 of the programs provide funding through  competitive and formula grants, and 1 program—DOT’s State  Infrastructure Banks program—provides loans.gaps in the programs, such as mobile sources that are not eligible for  funding. See appendix II for additional information about each program.
We did not identify any  From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, these 14 programs obligated at  least $1.4 billion for activities that have the effect of reducing mobile  source diesel emissions. According to data from DOE, DOT, and EPA,  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided about  $870 million of this funding. The $1.4 billion amount is a lower bound  because DOT could not determine the amount of grant and loan funding  some of its programs have provided for projects that reduce mobile  source diesel emissions. According to DOT officials, the agency does not  track this information because statutory program requirements do not call  for the agency to do so. These activities that have the effect of reducing  mobile source diesel emissions include replacing fleets of older diesel  trucks or school buses with natural gas vehicles, installing particulate  matter filters on construction equipment, and replacing diesel-powered  airport luggage transporters with electric vehicles. As table 1 shows,  some of the programs that support these activities have broad purposes,  such as increasing energy efficiency in transportation, reducing petroleum  consumption, or funding public transportation projects, and other  programs have narrower purposes, such as reducing emissions at  airports, constructing ferry boats and related facilities, or promoting  alternative transportation systems in and around national parks.
As table 2 shows, each of the 14 relevant programs overlaps with at least  one other program in the specific types of activities they fund, the  program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding. For example, 6 of the  14 programs share a broad goal of increasing energy efficiency, and local  governments are eligible to receive grants under 10 of the programs. In  addition, we found that 13 of the 14 programs fund activities that retrofit  diesel engines or vehicles, and 11 programs fund activities that reduce  diesel vehicle idling. We also identified the potential for overlap among  these 11 programs and an excise tax exemption for certain vehicle idling  reduction devices because the tax expenditure and the 11 programs all  provide incentives to use idle reduction devices to reduce diesel  emissions. Appendix III provides additional information on this and two  other tax expenditures related to diesel emissions reductions.
We also identified several instances of duplication where more than one  program provided funding to the same recipient for the same type of  activities. In one case, a state transportation agency received $5.4 million  from DOT’s Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction  program to, among other things, upgrade 37 diesel buses to hybrid  diesel-electric buses; $3.5 million from DOT’s Congestion Mitigation and  Air Quality Improvement program to replace diesel buses with 4 hybrid  diesel-electric buses; and $2.3 million from DOT’s Clean Fuels Grant  program to replace 4 diesel buses with hybrid electric buses. In another  case, a nonprofit organization received $1.1 million from EPA’s Diesel  Emissions Reduction Act Program to install emission reduction and idle  reduction technologies on 1,700 trucks as well as $5.6 million from a state  infrastructure bank established under DOT’s program to equip trucks and  truck fleets with emissions control and idle reduction devices.
Even with duplication among the programs, several factors make it  difficult to precisely determine whether unnecessary duplication exists.  First, when different programs fund the same diesel emissions reduction  activities, it is not necessarily wasteful. For example, a transit agency  could use funds from two different programs to replace two separate  fleets of aging diesel buses. Second, grant recipients may leverage  funding from more than one program to support the full cost of diesel  emissions reduction projects. In some cases, grant recipients have used  funding from multiple agencies, in addition to local matching funds, to  support the cost of large projects that include multiple diesel emissions  reduction activities. Third, agencies were often unable to provide  information necessary to determine whether and to what extent  unnecessary duplication exists among the programs. For example,  several agencies reported that they do not track costs for administrative  functions at the program level. Without information on these costs, it is  difficult to determine whether and to what extent programs perform  duplicative administrative functions that could be consolidated to provide  grants and loans more efficiently.
The fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs  result, in part, from their legislative creation as separate programs with  different purposes that fund a wide range of activities, some of which  have the effect of reducing mobile source diesel emissions. We have  previously reported that, as the federal government has responded over  time to new needs and problems, many agencies have been given  responsibilities for addressing the same or similar national issues. Some  of this shared responsibility was intended to recognize that addressing  some issues from a national perspective would necessarily involve more  than one agency or approach. However, the resulting fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication may waste administrative resources and create  an environment in which participants are not served as efficiently and  effectively as possible. In addition, we have previously reported that  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication suggest the need for further  examination of programs to identify potential areas for improvement,  realignment, consolidation, or elimination.
section_title: The Effectiveness of Federal Funding for Diesel Emissions Reduction Activities Is Unknown
paragraphs: The effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile  source diesel emissions is unknown because agencies vary in the extent  to which they have established performance measures. In addition, few  programs collect performance information on their diesel emissions  reduction activities because 13 of the 14 programs that fund these  activities have purposes other than reducing diesel emissions. This  incomplete performance information may limit the ability of agencies to  assess the effectiveness of their programs and activities that reduce  diesel emissions.
Agencies that fund activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions  have established performance measures for their strategic goals to  varying degrees. DOE and EPA have established performance measures  for the strategic goals related to their programs that reduce mobile source  diesel emissions. For example, EPA monitors progress toward its  strategic goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing  adaptation strategies to protect and improve air quality by measuring,  among other things, the tons of mobile source emissions its programs  reduce. DOT has established such performance measures for two of its  administrations—the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal  Highway Administration—but has not established such measures for the  Federal Transit Administration for two of the four strategic goals that link  to its programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities. Appendix  IV provides additional information on these agencies’ strategic goals and  performance measures related to programs that reduce mobile source  diesel emissions.
The Government Performance and Results Act, as amended, generally  requires agencies to provide a basis for comparing actual results with  established goals, and as such, federal departments and agencies are to  comply with Government Performance and Results Act requirements. As  we have previously reported, Government Performance and Results Act  requirements also can serve as leading practices at lower levels within  federal agencies, such as individual divisions, programs, or initiatives.  We have also reported that principles of good governance indicate that  agencies should establish quantifiable performance measures to  demonstrate how they intend to achieve their goals and measure the  extent to which they have done so. The Federal Transit Administration  has not established performance measures for its goals of (1)  environmental sustainability—that is, advancing environmentally  sustainable policies and investments that reduce carbon and other  harmful emissions from transportation sources—and (2) economic  competitiveness—that is, promoting transportation policies and  investments that bring lasting and equitable economic benefits to the  nation and its citizens. Agency officials said they generally collect  information on the current condition of the nation’s transit fleet, the use of  public transportation, and transit fleet compliance with the Americans with  Disabilities Act to measure the performance of the agency’s transit  programs. However, this information will not enable the agency to  determine the extent to which it has met its goals related to environmental  sustainability and economic competitiveness.
At the program level, limited performance information is available about  the results of activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions. The  14 programs that fund activities that reduce diesel emissions currently  collect performance information on their diesel emissions reduction  activities to varying degrees. According to agency documents and  officials, EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program collects  performance information on the amount and type of diesel emissions  reductions each project achieves; DOE’s three programs collect some  emissions reduction information but do not quantitatively collect diesel  emissions reduction information; three of DOT’s programs collect some  performance information related to diesel emissions reductions; and the  remaining seven DOT programs do not collect performance information  related to diesel emissions. This variation in the amount of diesel-related  performance information programs collect occurs partially because 13 of  the 14 programs that fund these activities have purposes other than  reducing diesel emissions, such as supporting energy efficiency projects  or reducing petroleum use. However, without information on the results of  the programs’ activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions, the  overall effectiveness of federal grant and loan funding for activities that  reduce diesel emissions cannot be determined.
EPA. EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program collects information  on the number of diesel engines it replaces, retrofits, and rebuilds as well  as information on the estimated tons of particulate matter, nitrogen oxide,  carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions it reduces.  According to agency documents, in fiscal year 2008—the most recent  year for which data were reported—the program reduced approximately  46,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions and 2,200 tons of particulate  matter emissions. EPA documents show that the cost for these  emissions reductions ranged from $400 to $2,000 per ton of nitrogen  oxide emissions reduced and from $9,000 to $27,700 per ton of  particulate matter emissions reduced.
DOE. DOE’s Clean Cities program collects information on reductions in  gasoline and diesel fuel use that the program achieves to measure  progress toward its program goal of reducing national petroleum use by  2.5 billion gallons by 2020. DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation  Block Grant and State Energy programs estimate emissions reductions  that result from program activities, but neither of these programs  separately tracks diesel emissions from other emissions reductions.
DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation  Administration’s Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program collects  information on the total amount of criteria pollutant emissions each project  will reduce, but it does not currently track reductions in diesel emissions.
DOT’s Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway  Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement  program collects information from grant recipients on the type and  quantity of emissions reduced through each project the program funds.  However, the program does not review or compile this information at the  national level. The Ferry Boat Discretionary and State Infrastructure  Banks programs do not collect performance information related to diesel  emissions reductions.
DOT’s Federal Transit Administration. The Federal Transit  Administration’s Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy  Reduction program obtains information from grant applicants on the  amount of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions each project is to  reduce, but the program does not separately track reductions in diesel  energy use or diesel emissions. The remaining five Federal Transit  Administration programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities— Bus and Bus Facilities, Clean Fuels Grant, National Fuel Cell Bus  Technology Development, Transit in Parks, and Urbanized Area Formula  Grants—do not collect performance information related to diesel  emissions reductions.
Efforts to measure the effects of programs that decrease diesel emissions  are also hindered by the absence of a baseline assessment of nationwide  diesel emissions from which agencies could measure progress. EPA has  assessed national levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter pollution  from some mobile diesel sources, including highway vehicles and some  nonroad equipment, and DOT maintains data on the number of diesel  transit vehicles currently in use. However, no agency has  comprehensively assessed existing diesel pollution to identify the most  significant mobile sources of diesel emissions and the specific areas that  face the greatest health risks from diesel pollution. Without a more  comprehensive assessment, agencies cannot identify and target, within  their discretion, funding toward specific sectors or geographic areas of  greatest need.criteria that may derive from law, agency discretion, or a combination  thereof. Under some programs, agencies allocate funding based on  statutory formulas or criteria. For example, DOT’s Urbanized Area  Formula Grants program uses a statutory formula to allocate funds on the  basis of population and population density. EPA’s Diesel Emissions  Reduction Act program awards funds competitively but, based on  statutory criteria, must prioritize projects that maximize health benefits,  are the most cost-effective, and serve areas with poor air quality, among  other factors. Under other programs, agencies have some discretion in  awarding funds. These agencies generally consider applicant eligibility  and other relevant factors, but this does not include consideration of  which areas face the greatest diesel-related health risks.
section_title: Limited Collaboration May Hinder the Effectiveness of Federal Funding for Activities That Reduce Diesel Emissions
paragraphs: The federal programs that fund activities that have the effect of reducing  mobile source diesel emissions generally do not collaborate. According to  DOE, DOT, and EPA officials, the three agencies consult on broad  issues, such as to discuss available technologies or emissions standards,  but these efforts do not involve collaboration on diesel-related issues.  Moreover, officials from most of the 14 programs reported that any  collaboration across the programs occurs on an informal, case-by-case  basis. For example, officials from EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act  Program said they may contact officials from the Federal Highway  Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement  program to discuss a specific emissions reduction technology or project  that appears in a grant application but that they do not collaborate with  officials from this program on a regular basis. Also, some program  officials reported that enhanced collaboration could improve the  effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions.  For example, officials from EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act  Program said that diesel-related programs could share information to  more efficiently award grants and to reduce duplication of agency efforts,  such as researching various emissions reduction technologies.
DOE, DOT, and EPA officials generally reported that they do not  collaborate on diesel emissions reduction activities with other federal  programs because they are unaware of the other programs that fund  these activities, including, in some cases, programs within their own  agencies. According to agency officials, this is due to the differing  purposes and goals of each program, which often do not directly relate to  reducing diesel emissions. However, we have previously reported that,  although federal programs have been designed for different purposes or  targeted for different population groups, coordination among programs  with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and effectively meet  national concerns. We reported that uncoordinated program efforts can  waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit  the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results as  envisioned by the Government Performance and Results Act implies that  federal programs contributing to the same or similar results should be  closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent, and, as  appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. This means that  federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and  coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned.  Also, the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of  2010 requires that agency strategic plans include a description of how the  agency is working with other agencies to, among other things, achieve its  goals and objectives.
In addition, we have previously reported that agencies face a range of  barriers in their efforts to collaborate. To overcome such barriers and to  maximize the performance and results of federal programs that share  common outcomes, we have previously identified practices that can help  agencies enhance and sustain collaboration. These practices include  agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities in the collaborative effort  and identifying and addressing needs by leveraging collective resources.  Further, we have reported that, to the extent that federal efforts are  fragmented across agency lines, developing crosscutting performance  measures through interagency coordination could ease implementation  burdens while strengthening efforts to develop best practices.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Over time, EPA has issued more stringent emissions regulations for new  diesel engines and vehicles, but existing diesel trucks, buses,  locomotives, ships, agriculture equipment, and construction equipment  continue to emit harmful pollution. Because diesel engines are durable  and energy efficient, it could take decades for these older diesel vehicles  and equipment to fall out of use. As a result, federal agencies play an  important role in accelerating the attrition of existing diesel engines and  vehicles and the resulting reduction in diesel emissions. However, federal  funding that reduces diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs  that overlap in their activities, goals, and eligible recipients. Also, the  effectiveness of this funding is unknown because agencies collect limited  performance information related to these programs. Because DOT’s  Federal Transit Administration has not developed performance measures  for its goals related to environmental sustainability and economic  competitiveness, the agency is unable to fully assess the performance of  programs that contribute to these goals. In addition, agencies collect  limited information on the results of the diesel emissions reduction  activities they fund and do not have a baseline assessment of nationwide  diesel emissions, which they could use to measure progress.
Also, collaboration among the 14 programs that fund activities that reduce  mobile source diesel emissions is essential to efficiently and effectively  reduce diesel emissions. As the focus on results as envisioned by the  Government Performance and Results Act implies, federal programs  contributing to the same or similar results should be closely coordinated  to ensure that goals are consistent, and, as appropriate, program efforts  are mutually reinforcing. Agencies often face barriers in their efforts to  collaborate, and some best practices for overcoming these barriers  include identifying agency roles and responsibilities as well as identifying  and leveraging collective resources. Further, when federal efforts are  fragmented, this coordination can be achieved through collaboratively  developing crosscutting performance measures. However, as we found,  these 14 programs generally do not collaborate and collect limited  information on the results of the activities they fund that reduce diesel  emissions. Without collaboration and crosscutting performance  measures, agencies do not have needed information to assess the  effectiveness and efficiency of their programs or identify any unnecessary  duplication.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making two recommendations to help ensure effectiveness and  accountability:  1.  For transit grant programs, we recommend that the Secretary of  Transportation require the Administrator of the Federal Transit  Administration to develop quantifiable performance measures, a  leading practice based in Government Performance and Results Act  principles, for the agency’s environmental sustainability and economic  competitiveness strategic goals. 2.  For federal funding that reduces diesel emissions, we recommend  that the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, and the  Administrator of the EPA, consistent with statutory obligations,  establish a strategy for collaboration among their grant and loan  programs in their activities that reduce mobile source diesel  emissions. This strategy should help the agencies identify agency roles and responsibilities for activities that reduce  diesel emissions, including how a collaborative effort will be led; identify and address any unnecessary duplication, as appropriate;  identify and leverage resources needed to support funding  activities that reduce diesel emissions; assess baseline levels of diesel pollution and the contributors to  mobile source diesel emissions to help agencies target, within  their discretion, investments and, as appropriate, inform efforts to  measure program effectiveness; and develop crosscutting performance measures, as appropriate, to  monitor the collective results of federal funding for activities that  reduce diesel emissions.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Energy, the  Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of EPA for their review  and comment. In its written comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our  findings and relevant recommendation. EPA’s comments can be found in  appendix V.
In its comments, DOE questioned several of our findings but agreed with  our relevant recommendation. Specifically, DOE stated that our report  mischaracterizes the agency as having a statutory responsibility for diesel  emissions reductions. Our report does not contain such a statement.  Rather, it identifies 14 programs, including 3 DOE programs, that fund  activities with the effect of reducing diesel emissions and states that  programs with related responsibilities should coordinate their efforts. Our  report states that most of the programs we identified have other goals or  purposes and do not focus on diesel emissions reduction; nonetheless,  each of the programs does fund such activities. Our report also  recognizes the varying statutory requirements for each program and  recommends that the agencies establish a strategy for collaboration that  is consistent with their existing statutory obligations. DOE also stated that  our report mischaracterizes DOE as not collaborating with other  government agencies. Our report states that DOE collaborates with other  agencies on broad issues but does not collaborate on diesel-related  issues. In addition, DOE stated that our report mischaracterized the  agency as sharing redundant national goals with DOT and EPA. Our  report does not discuss DOE’s national goals, their relationship to those  of other agencies, or whether they are redundant. Rather, our report (1)  focuses on DOE programs that fund activities that result in diesel  emissions reductions and (2) demonstrates that these programs share  similar goals with DOT and EPA programs that fund the same activities.  Specifically, each of these programs shares some goals, such as  reducing emissions, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing fuel use.  DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. DOE’s comments and our response can be found in  appendix VI.
DOT questioned several of this report’s key findings and its  recommendations. Specifically, DOT stated that we inaccurately  described the Federal Transit Administration’s programs as funding diesel  emissions reduction activities. Our report identifies activities that reduce  diesel emissions, including replacing existing diesel vehicles and  installing devices that reduce idling of diesel engines, and identifies six  Federal Transit Administration programs that fund these same activities.  In addition, DOT questioned the evidence underlying our finding of  fragmentation among the federal programs within our review. DOT stated  that we identified independent programs with varying objectives that, in  some cases, include similar activities. As we reported, fragmentation  occurs when more than one federal agency, or more than one  organization within an agency, is involved in the same broad area of  national need. Further, our report does not state that fragmentation  implies small, incomplete, or broken parts strewn across government, as  DOT’s comments state. Our report clearly identifies fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication among the 14 federal programs that fund diesel  emissions reduction activities. Consistent with our established definition  of fragmentation and our evidence, we stand by our finding that federal  grant and loan funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions is  fragmented across 14 programs.
DOT also questioned our finding that the effectiveness of federal funding  for diesel emissions reduction activities is unknown. DOT stated that we  could have used available air quality data from EPA to assess the  effectiveness of the programs we reviewed. We reviewed air quality data  from EPA and determined that it was not possible to establish a causal  link between the EPA data and the programs we reviewed. Moreover,  principles of good governance indicate that agencies that use scarce  federal resources should establish quantifiable performance measures for  use in administering their programs. This is particularly important when  multiple agencies engage in the same or similar activities, even if the  activities contribute to different goals. Related to this finding, DOT  questioned why the report does not include information that the Federal  Transit Administration provided on its contribution to air quality  improvement through replacing transit buses. We reviewed this  information and found that the numbers the Federal Transit  Administration provided were based on unverified assumptions and  estimates rather than actual data on the number of diesel buses replaced.  As such, the numbers were not reliable for the purposes of our report.
In several instances, DOT questioned our recommendation that the  Federal Transit Administration should develop quantifiable performance  measures for its environmental sustainability and economic  competitiveness strategic goals. DOT’s comments on this  recommendation reflect a misinterpretation of the recommendation.  Specifically, DOT incorrectly stated that our report recommended that the  Federal Transit Administration develop quantifiable performance  measures relating to diesel emissions reductions. Neither of our  recommendations called for DOT to establish such performance  measures. Instead, we recommended that (1) the Federal Transit  Administration develop performance measures for two of its agencywide  strategic goals and (2) DOE, DOT, and EPA establish a strategy for  collaboration on diesel emissions reduction activities that, among other  things, helps the agencies develop crosscutting performance measures,  as appropriate, to assess the collective results of federal funding for  activities that reduce diesel emissions. DOT also stated that it operates in  full compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act.  Specifically, DOT said that it has established outcome-focused  performance measures that are appropriate for its programs and mission  focus. Our report does not assess DOT's compliance with the  Government Performance and Results Act. Rather, it identifies the  Federal Transit Administration's strategic goals that relate to the agency's  relevant programs and states whether the Federal Transit Administration  has developed performance measures for these goals. Our report states  that principles of good governance indicate that agencies should establish  quantifiable performance measures to demonstrate how they intend to  achieve their goals and measure the extent to which they do so. Our  report also states that Government Performance and Results Act  requirements for agencies to set goals for program performance and to  measure results can serve as leading practices for lower levels within  federal agencies. We have clarified the report language and  recommendation to state that, on the basis of these leading practices, we  recommend the Federal Transit Administration establish performance  measures for the two agency-wide strategic goals of environmental  sustainability and economic competitiveness that relate to the programs  involving diesel emissions reduction activities. The Federal Transit  Administration provided no evidence that it has established performance  measures for these strategic goals. Importantly, the agency’s fiscal year  2012 budget justification that it submitted to Congress—the document  that Federal Transit Administration officials said contained the agency’s  goals and performance measures—did not include performance  measures for its environmental sustainability and economic  competitiveness strategic goals. We continue to believe that the Federal  Transit Administration should establish performance measures for these  goals.
Regarding our recommendation that DOE, DOT, and EPA establish a  strategy for collaboration among their programs that reduce mobile  source diesel emissions, DOT agreed that collaboration can be useful but  questioned its usefulness in this context. Specifically, DOT stated that the  report demonstrates no specific deficiency that has occurred due to the  existing level of collaboration. As our report states, DOE, DOT, and EPA  were generally unaware of other programs that fund activities that  decrease diesel emissions. Additionally, we reported that representatives  of several DOE and DOT programs were unaware of related programs  within their own agencies that fund the same underlying activities. Our  report also states that EPA officials said that enhanced collaboration  could improve the effectiveness of federal funding for activities that  reduce diesel emissions. In its comments, DOT stated that the report  does not offer evidence to support why establishing a strategy for  collaboration among entities that fund these activities should be a priority  use of federal resources. While the programs we reviewed have been  designed for different purposes, coordination among programs with  related responsibilities and that fund the same activities is essential to the  efficient and effective use of resources. Further, uncoordinated programs  can waste scarce funds and limit the overall effectiveness of federal  spending. We therefore continue to believe that our recommendation is  warranted.
DOT also stated that the report does not effectively demonstrate that our  recommended actions will produce cost-effective investments appropriate  for DOT that do not potentially duplicate efforts elsewhere in the  government. We believe it is entirely appropriate for the Federal Transit  Administration to establish performance measures for its goals and do not  see how this would duplicate other efforts within the government. We also  continue to believe that establishing a strategy for collaboration is an  appropriate investment that would help ensure the effectiveness and  accountability of federal funding for activities that reduce diesel  emissions. As we noted, such a strategy should help agencies identify  and address any unnecessary duplication.
Finally, DOT's comments emphasized its view that its programs focus on  their statutory mission of transit, whereas diesel emissions reduction is a  corollary benefit. Our report states that most of the programs we identified  have other goals or purposes and do not focus on diesel emissions  reduction; nonetheless, each of the programs does fund such activities.  Our report also recognizes the statutory requirements for each program  and recommends that the agencies establish a strategy for collaboration  that is consistent with existing statutory obligations. DOT’s comments can  be found in appendix VII.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Energy and  Transportation, the Administrator of the EPA, appropriate congressional  committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines the (1) extent to which duplication, overlap,  fragmentation, or gaps, if any, exist among federal grant, rebate, and loan  programs that address mobile source diesel emissions; (2) effectiveness  of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile source diesel  emissions; and (3) extent to which collaboration takes place among  agencies that fund activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions.
To address the first objective, we identified federal grant, rebate, and loan  programs that address mobile source diesel emissions, and reviewed  information about each program to identify duplication, overlap,  fragmentation, and gaps. To identify the programs that address diesel  emissions, we (1) conducted a literature review of government reports,  academic materials, legislation, transcripts, appropriations, trade and  industry articles, and other relevant publications; (2) interviewed agency  officials and relevant industry stakeholders; and (3) reviewed agency  documents, including information about activities eligible for funding. For  the literature review, we searched twenty databases and websites— Article First, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget  Office, Inspectors General, Policyfile, ProQuest, Worldcat, National  Technical Information Services, Wilson’s Applied Science and Technical  Abstracts, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, among  others—for materials published in the last 10 years that may identify  relevant federal grant, rebate, and loan programs. Next, we interviewed  agency and relevant third-party officials and analyzed agency documents  to determine if the programs our searches identified could provide funding  for activities that reduce diesel emissions. For this review, we identified  programs that fund activities that directly reduce diesel emissions and did  not include programs that fund activities, such as research and  development efforts, that have the potential to reduce diesel emissions in  the future. We held these interviews and conducted these searches from  June 2011 to September 2011.
For each program we identified as reducing diesel emissions, we  conducted structured interviews of agency officials and reviewed agency  documents to determine the types of funding the program provides as  well as its purpose, goals, eligible activities, and eligible applicants. We  then compared each of these areas across the programs to identify areas  of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation. We also compared eligible  recipients under each program with available data on the sources of  diesel emissions to identify any gaps among the programs, such as  mobile sources of diesel emissions for which funding opportunities are not  available. For the duplication, overlap, and fragmentation we found, we  interviewed agency officials and relevant industry stakeholders to  determine its causes and impact.
In addition, we obtained and analyzed funding data from the Department  of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the total amount of  federal funding for diesel emissions reduction projects from fiscal years  2007 through 2011. We selected fiscal years 2007 through 2011 as our  time period because, by 2007, EPA had issued emissions standards for  key on-road sources, such as heavy-duty trucks and buses, as well as a  rule requiring refiners to reduce the sulfur content—and therefore the  emissions—of certain diesel fuels. We obtained these data from DOE for  the Clean Cities, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, and  State Energy programs; from DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration for  the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program; from DOT’s Federal  Highway Administration for the Ferry Boat and State Infrastructure Banks  programs; from DOT’s Federal Transit Administration for the National  Fuel Cell Bus Technology Development and Transit Investments in  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction programs; and from EPA for the  Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. However, DOT’s Federal  Transit Administration was unable to provide this data for the Bus and  Bus Facilities, Clean Fuels Grant, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality  Improvement, Transit in Parks, and Urbanized Area Formula Grants  programs. A Federal Transit Administration official said that because the  agency did not track which awards under these programs reduced diesel  emissions or diesel fuel use, it was unable to identify the amount of  funding each of these programs provided for activities that reduced diesel  emissions. The official said that the agency did not track these data  because statutory requirements do not call for such tracking. Instead, the  agency provided us access to its grants management database, from  which we estimated the amount of funding provided for diesel emissions  reduction projects for the Clean Fuels Grant, Congestion Mitigation and  Air Quality Improvement, and Transit in Parks programs, but we were  unable to estimate the amount of funding provided through the Bus and  Bus Facilities or Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs due to the  limited timeframes of our review. We reviewed documents about the  underlying databases that DOE, DOT, and EPA use to collect grant  information and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials to assess the  reliability of the data for each program. We determined that the data  obtained from these agencies were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report.
In addition, the Federal Transit Administration provided estimates of the  amount that its Bus and Bus Facilities, Clean Fuels Grant, Congestion  Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Transit in Parks, and Urbanized  Area Formula Grants programs awarded from fiscal years 2007 through  2011 for projects that reduced diesel emissions. The agency derived  these estimates by identifying obligations made under each of these five  programs from fiscal years 2007 through 2011 for purchasing  replacement transit vehicles. However, the agency does not consistently  collect information on the fuel-type of the vehicles it replaces; rather it  collects information on the intended purchase, by fuel-type, for all  obligations made in each grant by year and program. The Federal Transit  Administration provided this information to GAO; however, this  information does not accurately reflect the amount of funding provided for  replacement vehicles that reduced diesel emissions, and we did not  include the information in this report.
To address the second objective, we reviewed and analyzed agency  officials’ responses to structured interview questions on their program  goals and performance information. We also analyzed agency strategic  plans, budget documents, and other agency documentation containing  performance information. We reviewed relevant provisions of the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as amended by the  Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, as  well as our prior work on performance measurement.
To address the third objective, we reviewed and analyzed agency  officials’ responses to structured interview questions on coordination with  other programs and assessment of diesel pollution. We also reviewed our  prior work on collaboration to compare these programs’ efforts with best  practices for federal programs. In addition, to identify tax expenditures  that provide incentives that address mobile source diesel emissions, we  reviewed tax expenditure lists produced by the U.S. Department of the  Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation; reports by the  Congressional Research Service, including the 2010 tax expenditure  compendium; and a DOE list of federal incentives related to alternative  fuels, vehicles, and air quality.DOE, DOT, and EPA as well as industry stakeholders.
We also interviewed agency officials at  We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to February 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Additional Information on Federal Programs That Provide Grants or Loans for Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Reduction Activities
subsections: section_title: Department of Energy
paragraphs: Clean Cities program. DOE’s Clean Cities program, administered by the  Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is a government- industry partnership that works to reduce America’s petroleum  consumption in the transportation sector. The program provides  competitive grants for projects that implement a range of energy-efficient  and advanced vehicle technologies, such as hybrids, electric vehicles,  plug-in electric hybrids, hydraulic hybrids, and compressed natural gas  vehicles, helping reduce petroleum consumption across the United  States. The program also supports refueling infrastructure for various  alternative fuel vehicles, as well as public education and training  initiatives.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. The  Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, administered  by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, provides  funds through competitive and formula grants to states, territories,  federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments to develop and  implement projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use  and fossil fuel emissions in their communities.
State Energy Program. The State Energy Program, administered by  DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, provides  technical and financial assistance to states through formula and  competitive grants. States may use such grants to develop, modify, and  implement approved state energy conservation plans.
section_title: Department of Transportation
subsections: section_title: Federal Aviation Administration
paragraphs: Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program. The Voluntary Airport Low  Emissions program provides funding to reduce airport ground emissions  at commercial service airports in areas failing to meet or maintain  National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Grant funding generally supports  projects such as electrification of airport gate systems, the incremental  cost of purchasing electric luggage carts, and purchasing airport shuttle  buses that use alternative fuels. The Federal Aviation Administration  considers applications for Voluntary Airport Low Emissions grants on a  case-by-case basis based on the project’s importance relative to other  eligible airport activities. The agency also considers each project’s cost  effectiveness and reductions in air emissions.
section_title: Federal Highway Administration
paragraphs: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program. Jointly  administered by Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit  Administration, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement  program provides grants to state departments of transportation,  metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies for a variety of  transportation projects in areas that do not meet or have previously failed  to meet federal air quality standards. The program distributes funding  through a statutory formula primarily based on population in areas of  certain air quality status. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient  Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 expanded the  focus of eligible projects under the program, placing more priority on  diesel engine retrofits and cost-effective emission reduction and  congestion mitigation projects that also provide air quality benefits.
Ferry Boat Discretionary program. The Intermodal Surface  Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 amended a predecessor ferry  program, resulting in this program to construct ferry boats and ferry  terminal facilities. Eligible projects include both ferry boats carrying  passengers only and those carrying cars and passengers. In general,  ferry boats and facilities must be publicly owned or operated, and the  ferry facilities must provide connections on a public road, which has not  been designated part of the interstate system. The program provides  administrative consideration of whether the project will result in a useable  facility; what other benefits exist; whether other funds, either state or  local, are committed to the project; and whether the project has received  program funds in the past.
State Infrastructure Bank program. The State Infrastructure Bank  program provides the opportunity to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District  of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the  Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to establish  transportation revolving loan funds. States may capitalize their revolving  loan funds with federal highway funding, and states could offer a range of  loans and credit options, such as low-interest loans, loan guarantees, or  loans requiring repayment of interest-only in early years and delayed  repayment of the loan’s principal. For example, through a revolving fund,  states could lend money to public or private sponsors of transportation  projects, project-based or general revenues (such as tolls or dedicated  taxes) could be used to repay loans with interest, and the repayments  would replenish the fund so that new loans could be supported.
section_title: Federal Transit Administration
paragraphs: Bus and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities program. DOT’s Bus  and Bus Facilities program provides capital assistance for new and  replacement buses, related equipment, and related facilities for expansion  and maintenance purposes. The projects funded by this program are  generally determined by Congress. Funds can be provided only to state  and local governmental authorities. The purpose of the program is to  replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and bus-related facilities in  support of FTA’s goal of developing a transportation system that (1)  maximizes the safe, secure, and efficient mobility of individuals; (2)  minimizes environmental impacts; and (3) minimizes transportation- related fuel consumption and reliance on foreign oil.
Clean Fuels Grant program. This program provides competitive grants  to assist areas in achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air  Quality Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide and to support  emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit  buses and markets for those technologies. Eligible projects under the  program include (1) purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses, including  buses that employ a lightweight composite primary structure and vans for  use in revenue service; (2) constructing or leasing clean fuel bus facilities  or electrical recharging facilities and related equipment; and (3)  purchasing clean fuel, biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero emissions  technology buses that exhibit equivalent or superior emissions reductions  to existing clean fuel or hybrid electric technologies.
National Fuel Cell Bus Technology Development program. This  program is a research, development, and demonstration competitive  grant program established to facilitate the development of fuel cell bus  technology and related infrastructure. The Federal Transit Administration  may award grants for this purpose to up to three geographically diverse  nonprofit organizations. The goals of the program are to (1) facilitate the  development of commercially viable fuel cell bus technologies, (2)  significantly improve transit bus fuel efficiency and reduce petroleum  consumption, (3) reduce transit bus emissions, (4) establish a globally  competitive U.S. industry for fuel cell bus technologies, and (5) increase  public acceptance of the fuel cell vehicles.
Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program. The Transit in Parks  program was established to address the challenge of increasing vehicle  congestion in and around our national parks and other federal lands by  providing competitive grants for capital and planning expenses for new or  existing alternative transportation systems in the vicinity of federally  owned or managed recreation areas. According to program documents,  alternative transportation includes transportation by bus, rail, or any other  publicly available means of transportation and includes sightseeing  service. It also includes nonmotorized transportation systems such as  pedestrian and bicycle trails. The program seeks to conserve natural,  historical, and cultural resources; reduce congestion and pollution;  improve visitor mobility and accessibility; enhance visitor experience; and  ensure access to all, including persons with disabilities.
Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction  program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  authorized the Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy  Reduction program, and the program received funding through fiscal year  2011. The program did not receive funding for fiscal year 2012 in the  relevant appropriations act.assist public transportation agencies in implementing strategies for  reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy use in transit  operations. Eligible applicants under the program include public  transportation agencies, federally recognized tribes, and state  departments of transportation. Two types of projects are eligible for  funding under the Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy  Reduction program: capital investments that assist in reducing the energy  consumption of a transit agency and capital investments that reduce  greenhouse gas emissions of a transit agency. For purposes of the  Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program,  energy consumption is defined as energy purchased directly by the public  transportation agency. Examples of energy include diesel fuel,  compressed natural gas, and electricity purchased from power plants.  Emissions are defined as those emitted directly by the assets of the  public transportation agency.
An urbanized area is an area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as  such in the 2000 Census by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
200,000 or more. Funds are first apportioned based on a formula  provided in law to designated recipients (typically metropolitan planning  organizations or a state or regional authority responsible for capital  projects and for financing and directly providing public transportation).  Designated recipients allocate the apportionment among eligible transit  service providers in the urbanized area. Eligible uses of program funds  include planning, design, and evaluation of transit projects and capital  investments in bus-related activities, such as replacement, overhaul, and  rebuilding of buses.
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. This program provides  grant funding to reduce emissions from existing diesel engines through  engine retrofits, rebuilds, and replacements; switching to cleaner fuels;  and other strategies. The program offers funding through four  subprograms:  the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program awards  competitive grants for projects implementing EPA verified and  certified diesel emissions reduction technologies,  the National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program  awards competitive grants for projects that develop and evaluate  emerging diesel emissions reduction technologies, the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program awards competitive  grants to establish low-cost revolving loans or other innovative  financing programs that help fleets reduce diesel emissions, and the State Clean Diesel Grant Program allocates funds to  participating states to implement grant and loan programs for  clean diesel projects.
section_title: Appendix III: Tax Expenditures Related to Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Reduction Activities
subsections: section_title: Excise Tax Exemption for Idling Reduction Devices
paragraphs: This tax expenditure excludes certain idling reduction devices from the  federal excise tax. Under federal excise tax law, heavy truck, trailer, and  tractor parts sold separately from the vehicle generally are subject to a 12  percent retail tax. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008  excludes qualified idling reduction devices from the federal retail tax on  vehicle parts. EPA, in consultation with the Secretaries for the DOT and  DOE, maintains a list of devices approved for the tax exemption. An idle  reduction device is generally a device or system that provides services,  such as heat, air conditioning, or electricity, to the vehicle or equipment  without the use of the main drive engine while the vehicle or equipment is  temporarily parked or remains stationary, hence reducing unnecessary  idling of the vehicle or equipment. No estimate of forgone federal tax  revenue for this excise tax provision is available because the Department  of the Treasury reports estimates only for income tax expenditures and  does not report estimates for tax provisions that result in forgone excise  tax only.
section_title: Biodiesel and Small Agri-biodiesel Producer Tax Credits
paragraphs: This tax expenditure provides an income tax credit as well as an excise  tax credit for the production and use of biodiesel. The use of biodiesel  instead of conventional diesel fuel significantly reduces particulate matter  and hydrocarbon emissions. The biodiesel fuels income tax credit is the  sum of three credits: (1) the biodiesel mixture credit, which provides $1  for each gallon of biodiesel and agri-biodiesel used by the taxpayer in the  production of a qualified biodiesel mixture; (2) the biodiesel credit, which  is $1 per gallon for each gallon of unblended biodiesel and agri-biodiesel  when used as a fuel or sold at retail; and (3) the small agri-biodiesel  producer credit, which is 10 cents per gallon for up to 15 million gallons of  agri-biodiesel produced by small producers. The biodiesel excise tax  credit provides a tax credit of $1 for each gallon of biodiesel or agri- biodiesel a taxpayer used to produce a biodiesel mixture for sale or use in  a trade or business. Renewable diesel fuel is eligible for both the income  tax credit and excise tax credit at a rate of $1 per gallon. According to  Department of the Treasury estimates, in fiscal year 2010, the biodiesel  income tax credits resulted in $20 million in forgone federal income tax  revenue, and the biodiesel excise tax credit resulted in $490 million in  forgone federal excise tax revenue.
section_title: Diesel Fuel Emulsion Tax Credit
paragraphs: A claim for credit or refund may be made for the nontaxable use of a  diesel-water fuel emulsion—a mixture of diesel, water, and additives— and for undyed diesel fuel used to produce a diesel-water fuel emulsion.  The presence of water in the emulsion reduces both nitrogen oxide and  particulate matter emissions from the diesel fuel. The claim rate for  nontaxable use of a diesel-water fuel emulsion taxed at 19.8 cents per  gallon is 19.7 cents (if exported, the claim rate is 19.8 cents). The  following are the nontaxable uses for a diesel-water fuel emulsion for  which a credit or refund may be allowable to an ultimate purchaser: on a  farm for farming purposes; off-highway business use; export; in a  qualified local bus; in a school bus; other than as fuel in the propulsion  engine of a train or diesel-powered highway vehicle, but not off-highway  use; exclusive use by a qualified blood collector organization; in a  highway vehicle owned by the United States that is not used on a  highway; exclusive use by a nonprofit educational organization; exclusive  use by a state, political subdivision of a state, or the District of Columbia;  and in an aircraft or vehicle owned by an aircraft museum. No estimate of  forgone federal tax revenue for this excise tax provision is available  because the Department of the Treasury reports estimates only for  income tax expenditures and does not report estimates for tax provisions  that result in forgone excise tax only.
section_title: Appendix IV: Strategic Goals and Establishment of Performance Measures Related to Programs That Fund Activities That Reduce Mobile Source Diesel Emissions
subsections: section_title: Agency DOE
section_title: Agency
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Energy
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. We agree that the DOE programs identified in this report fund projects  that have a secondary effect of reducing diesel emissions. As our report  states, these programs fund activities, such as retrofitting, rebuilding, or  replacing existing diesel engines or vehicles, which have the effect of  reducing diesel emissions. Our report also states that these programs  generally focus on goals or purposes that do not directly relate to  reducing diesel emissions. We did not modify our report based on this  comment.  2. Our report does not evaluate whether DOE programs have established  performance measures specific to mobile source diesel emissions  reductions. Rather, this report states that DOE has established  performance measures for the agency’s strategic goals that relate to its  programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities. We did not  modify our report based on this comment.  3. Our report recognizes that DOE, DOT, and EPA consult on broad  issues and states that the programs at these agencies that fund diesel  emissions reduction activities generally do not collaborate. We did not  review any collaboration that occurs among programs other than the 14  identified in our report or is not specifically related to diesel emissions  reductions because this was outside the scope of our review. We did not  modify our report based on this comment.  4. We disagree with DOE’s statement that there is not fragmentation or  overlap among the 14 programs identified in our report. As our report  states, fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency, or  more than one organization within an agency, is involved in the same  broad area of national need. We found that the 14 programs that fund  activities that have the effect of reducing diesel emissions are involved in  the same area of national need. Our report states that overlap occurs  when multiple agencies and programs have similar goals, engage in  similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar  beneficiaries. As our report shows, each of the 14 programs shares goals,  activities, or beneficiaries with at least one other program. In addition, we  agree with DOE’s statement that it does not have a quantifiable goal  associated with reducing diesel emissions. As we reported, DOE’s 3  programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities share one or  more broad goals, such as reducing emissions, increasing energy  efficiency, and reducing fuel use, with the other 11 programs that fund  these activities. We did not modify our report based on this comment.  5. We revised our report to note that DOE does not quantitatively collect  information on diesel emissions reductions. We also noted that the three  DOE programs collect some information related to diesel emissions  reductions. For example, our report states that DOE’s Clean Cities  program collects information on reductions in gasoline and diesel fuel  use, and the agency’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant  and State Energy programs estimate emissions reductions that result  from program activities. Further, we continue to believe that without  information on the results of programs’ activities that reduce mobile  source emissions, the overall effectiveness of federal grant and loan  funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions cannot be determined.  6. We do not state that the secondary effect of reducing diesel emissions  is a DOE responsibility. As our report shows, each of the 3 DOE  programs we identified as funding diesel emissions reduction activities  has responsibilities related to those of the other 11 programs within our  review because they fund similar activities and have similar goals,  including increasing energy efficiency and reducing fuel use. We continue  to believe, as we state in our report, that coordination among programs  with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and effectively meet  national concerns. Further, our report states that the DOE programs  within our review focus on purposes other than reducing diesel emissions  and lists the specific purpose for each DOE program. We did not modify  our report based on this comment.  7. We believe this report sufficiently acknowledges the impact of the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on funding for  activities that reduce diesel emissions. Our report states that the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $870 million of the  $1.4 billion that DOE, DOT, and EPA programs provided for activities that  reduced mobile source diesel emissions from fiscal years 2007 through  2011. We did not modify our report based on this comment.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Michael Hix, Assistant Director;  Jennifer Beveridge; Colleen Candrl; Elizabeth Curda; Cindy Gilbert;  Kristin Hughes; Joah Iannotta; Terence Lam; Zina Merritt; Ray Sendejas;  MaryLynn Sergent; Tina Sherman; Ben Shouse; Kiki Theodoropoulos;  and Sam Wilson made key contributions to this report.