Department of Transportation: Experts Identified Areas for Operational Improvements without Implementing Organizational Changes
Published: 2017-05-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOT was established over 50 years ago, in part, to build, maintain, and oversee a vast national transportation system. Millions of Americans rely on this system every day to travel and receive goods and services. DOT is organized into nine modal administrations that are generally responsible for activities related to specific transportation modes, such as air, rail, public transit, and highways.
GAO was asked to examine how well DOT's organizational structure enables DOT to address today's transportation challenges. This report addresses (1) activities performed by multiple DOT administrations to fulfill their missions and how, if at all, DOT coordinates these activities, and (2) expert opinions on what, if any, organizational or operational changes could enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions. GAO reviewed documentation on DOT's missions, interviewed DOT officials, and worked with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to convene a meeting with transportation and organizational-change experts. Experts were selected for their experience working with multiple modes of transportation and expertise in organizational change, among other factors.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The United States Department of Transportation's (DOT) nine modal administrations conduct a range of similar activities that are generally intended: (1) to achieve different goals (e.g., to protect consumers or improve motor vehicle efficiency); (2) to serve different recipients (e.g., airlines, railroads); or (3) to meet different requirements (e.g., grant and credit programs specified in statute). DOT has numerous efforts to coordinate similar activities across administrations, such as formal coordinating bodies that bring together staff from multiple modes on a variety of topics. DOT also has processes designed to coordinate regulations' development and to approve infrastructure projects.
Experts told GAO that DOT could make operational improvements but does not need to implement organizational changes, to help efficiently and effectively carry out its missions. Experts identified five areas:
Collaboration and coordination: Additional efforts to collaborate among the nine modal administrations, state and local governments, and other federal agencies would better support the development of transportation projects. For example, experts stated DOT could improve the effectiveness of internal collaborative groups by including senior-level officials who could provide leadership and have the authority to make decisions.
Data quality and analytics: Prioritizing which data to collect and improving analytic capabilities could help DOT ensure data are effectively used. Experts stated DOT could do a better job identifying and improving data quality to answer specific, transportation-related questions.
Regulation development: Improving how regulations are developed could help DOT ensure the agency's priorities are addressed and coordinated among all stakeholders. Experts stated that DOT could improve the quality and timeliness of its regulations by seeking earlier input from stakeholders.
Project delivery processes: Streamlining and making the project delivery processes more consistent across modal administrations could reduce barriers and challenges for state and local governments. For example, experts suggested creating a central position to help state and local governments navigate the environmental review process.
Addressing emerging issues: Proactively focusing on how to address technological advancements (e.g., autonomous vehicles) and other emerging issues (e.g., safely transporting domestic oil and gas) could help DOT achieve its missions more efficiently and effectively. For example, experts were concerned that DOT was falling behind the private sector's need for research and specific regulations for autonomous vehicles.
DOT officials agreed improvements are needed across DOT within the areas identified by experts. However, DOT did not identify plans to conduct a department-wide review. The administration recently released documents requiring federal agencies, including DOT, to assess their ability to efficiently and effectively meet their missions. In addition, federal internal control standards require agencies to assess and, typically, develop an action plan to determine whether their policies are effective. Such an assessment could help DOT to improve how it implements programs across all of its modal administrations.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: DOT should conduct a department-wide review of its current efforts to address issues in the areas experts identified for improvement and develop an action plan to implement improvements, as identified, in these areas. DOT concurred with these recommendations and cited new initiatives to improve the department.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Americans depend on the nation’s vast transportation system to go about  their lives. Over 300-million individuals use this network every day,  spending an average of more than 80 minutes per day traveling for a  range of activities, including going to and from work, school, places of  worship, and commercial businesses. In addition, the nation’s freight  transportation network is vital to the functioning of the economy, moving  more than 20-billion tons in goods, valued at $18 trillion, annually.  Americans rely on this system to gain access to goods and services every  day and transportation-related purchases and investments account for  close to 10 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.
For over 50 years, Congress has tasked the United States Department of  Transportation (DOT) with overseeing the safety of the transportation system, with distributing federal funds to state and local governments to build  and maintain the transportation network, and with conducting research on ongoing and emerging transportation  topics, among other activities.
In fiscal year 2016, DOT had a budget of approximately $76 billion, which  includes funding DOT distributes through grants, and had almost 51,000  employees. In March 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  released a blueprint that proposes, in part, a 13 percent reduction in  DOT’s discretionary budget and suggests altering the way several DOT  programs are funded and organized. In addition, a March 2017 Executive  Order requires federal agencies to submit to OMB a proposed plan to  reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency,  effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.
You asked us to examine DOT’s organizational structure consisting of  nine administrations, each of which is generally responsible for activities  related to a specific transportation mode (e.g., air, rail, public transit,  highways, etc.). Specifically, you were interested in how well this structure  equips DOT to efficiently and effectively address current and future  transportation challenges, including rapid technological advancements,  population and economic changes, an aging infrastructure that requires  substantial investment, and continuously increasing congestion across all  transportation modes. This report addresses: (1) activities performed by  multiple DOT modal administrations to fulfill their missions and how, if at  all, DOT coordinates these activities, and (2) expert opinions on what, if  any, organizational or operational changes could enable DOT to more  efficiently and effectively carry out its missions.
To identify activities performed by multiple DOT administrations and how  they coordinate, we reviewed historical as well as current statutes  pertaining to DOT’s organization and documentation on DOT’s overall  mission and the missions of the nine modal administrations, including  strategic plans, budget documents, and organizational manuals. To  collect expert opinion on organizational or other changes that could  enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions, in  September 2016, with the assistance of the National Academies of  Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), we  convened a GAO meeting with 18 experts. Our participants included  former DOT officials, representatives from local and state transportation  organizations, private businesses that use our nation’s transportation  system, and other experts in transportation policy and organizational  change management. We used several criteria to select experts,  including experience with multiple modes of transportation and DOT  administrations, and expertise in organizational change, among others.  We used a content analysis and follow-up questionnaire to analyze  information obtained from these experts. In addition, we reviewed prior  work by GAO and the DOT Office of Inspector General (DOT OIG). This  work discussed the areas for improvement experts identified. To address  both of our objectives and gather background information, we interviewed  DOT officials from the Office of the Secretary (OST) and all nine modal  administrations, as well as former DOT officials, representatives from  state and local transportation agencies, transportation stakeholders from  consulting firms, non-profits and think tanks, and academics in the field of  organizational change. See appendix I for more detailed information on  our scope and methodology, including listings of the experts we met with.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOT and its administrations interact with all levels of government and the  private sector. When Congress created DOT in 1966, it combined several  existing federal transportation organizations with responsibility over  aviation, waterways, railroads, and highways. As shown in figure 1,  Congress has taken action over the past 50 years to create and dissolve  administrations within DOT, and transfer some responsibilities to different  administrations or federal agencies. Despite changes like these over the  years, DOT’s organizational structure and activities have remained largely  focused on transportation mode. DOT currently consists of nine modal  administrations, four of which were established at the inception of the  department.
DOT is made up of nine modal administrations and OST, each of which  has its own mission—primarily focused on enhancing mobility and safety.  OST is responsible: (1) for coordinating and overseeing the activities of  DOT’s modal administrations; (2) for promoting intermodal  transportation—in which multiple modes of transportation are used to  move people or goods; (3) for formulating national transportation policy;  (4) for negotiating and implementing international transportation  agreements; and (5) for awarding multi-modal transportation grants,  among other responsibilities. While OST is responsible for overseeing the  modal administrations, each individual administration is headed by a  political appointee and has its own missions, goals, and responsibilities,  which are achieved through varying activities:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): FAA is responsible for  overseeing the safety of civil aviation through the issuance and  enforcement of regulations and standards related to (1) the  manufacture, operation, certification, and maintenance of aircraft; (2)  the certification of the aviation workforce; and (3) the maintenance  and operations of airports. FAA also enforces hazardous material  regulations for shipments by air, regulates the launch and reentry  operations of commercial space-transportation companies,  administers aviation-related grant programs, and operates a network  of airport traffic-control towers, air-route traffic-control centers, and  flight service stations.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): FHWA is responsible for  coordinating highway transportation programs in cooperation with  states and other partners through the Federal-Aid Highway Program,  which provides federal financial assistance to states to construct and  improve highways, roads, and bridges, and to improve the safety of  public roads. FHWA also provides services through the Federal  Lands Highway Program to improve access to public lands and  manages a research, development, and technology program.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA): FMCSA is  responsible for enforcing safety and hazardous materials regulations  on commercial motor vehicles (e.g., trucks for moving freight and  household goods, and buses); improving commercial motor vehicle  technologies and safety information systems; and increasing  awareness of the importance of safely operating commercial motor  vehicles. FMCSA also provides grants to state and local government  agencies in a variety of areas, including for improving the safe  operation of commercial motor vehicles, commercial drivers-licensing  programs, and overseeing newly registered motor carriers.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): FRA is responsible for  developing and monitoring railroad compliance with federally  mandated safety standards on track maintenance, inspection  standards, and operating practices. FRA also administers federal  grant funds for passenger and freight rail infrastructure and services  (including Amtrak), safety improvements, and congestion relief  programs. In addition, FRA conducts research and development tests  on projects to improve safe rail transportation, investigates rail  accidents, provides training to and collaborates with the rail industry,  and promotes public education campaigns on highway-rail grade  crossing safety and the dangers associated with trespassing on rail  property.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA): FTA is responsible for  promoting the development, improvement, and safety of public  transportation systems, which include buses, rail, trolleys, and ferries,  through a variety of federal grant programs to local transit agencies.  FTA oversees these grants and evaluates whether grantees adhere to  federal standards. FTA also oversees safety measures and helps  develop next-generation technology research. Historically, FTA has  not directly overseen the safety of transit systems, but was granted  additional safety authorities under several recent surface  transportation authorizations, including the ability to temporarily take  over for an inadequate or incapable state-safety oversight agency.  FTA exercised this authority by taking temporary responsibility for  safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority  in October 2015.
Maritime Administration (MARAD): MARAD is responsible for  promoting the development and maintenance of the United States  merchant marine, which is sufficient to carry the nation’s domestic  waterborne commerce and may be called to serve as naval and  military auxiliary in times of war or national emergency. As part of this  responsibility, MARAD funds and operates the United States  Merchant Marine Academy and provides funding to six state maritime  academies. MARAD is also responsible for ensuring the United States  maintains shipbuilding and repair service capabilities, efficient ports,  effective intermodal water and land transportation systems, and  reserve shipping capacity in times of national emergency.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): NHTSA is  responsible for setting and enforcing safety performance standards for  motor vehicles and equipment and providing grants to state and local  governments for conducting local highway safety programs. NHTSA  also investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, sets and enforces  fuel economy standards, helps states and local communities address  impaired driving, promotes the use of safety technologies, and  conducts research on driver behavior and traffic safety, among other  activities. In addition, NHTSA promotes the use of safety belts, child  safety seats, and motor cycle helmets; establishes and enforces  vehicle anti-theft system regulations; and provides consumer  information on motor vehicle safety.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA):  PHMSA is responsible for overseeing the safe transportation of oil,  gas, and other hazardous materials by all transportation modes,  including pipelines, through the development and enforcement of  regulations and standards, education, research, and assistance to the  emergency response community. PHMSA also oversees the safety of  the nation’s oil and gas pipeline network by inspecting pipelines,  collecting and analyzing data, and investigating accidents to identify  potential safety improvements.
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC): SLSDC is  a wholly owned government corporation within DOT that is  responsible for working with the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway  Management Corporation to oversee operations for commercial and  noncommercial vessels on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence  Seaway. SLSDC coordinates with Canadian authorities on operational  issues such as traffic management, navigation aids, safety, and  environmental programs. SLSDC and Canadian authorities also work  on trade development opportunities between port communities,  shippers, and receivers.
While DOT is responsible for conducting a wide range of activities, many  of DOT’s program requirements are established in statute. For example,  FRA, FHWA, and PHMSA, among other administrations, are responsible  for enforcing statutory safety standards. In addition, DOT’s modal  administrations administer both discretionary and formula grant programs,  both of which must be authorized in statute.
The majority of DOT’s funding is provided from transportation related  taxes and user fees, which are collected for specific purposes. The  Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which was established by Congress in 1956,  collects motor fuel and truck-related taxes for use on highway and mass  transit programs. For example, Congress appropriates funds from the  HTF to FHWA to distribute to states for construction, reconstruction, and  improvement of highways and bridges. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund  (AATF), which was established by Congress in 1970, collects airline ticket  and aviation fuel taxes for use on airport and airway system programs  administered by FAA. Congress appropriates funds from the AATF to  FAA for use on technological improvements to the air traffic control  system, research on issues related to aviation safety, grants for airport  planning and development, and the operation of the air traffic control  system. DOT also receives funds from the U.S. General Fund through the  annual appropriations cycle.
section_title: DOT’s Administrations Conduct and Have Methods to Coordinate Similar Activities
subsections: section_title: DOT’s Administrations Conduct Similar Activities That Generally Have Different Goals, Recipients, Requirements, or Funding Sources
paragraphs: DOT’s administrations have similar missions and responsibilities and,  therefore, perform similar activities related to helping the Department  meet its overall mission of ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and  convenient transportation system. We have found that it is important to  identify instances when multiple federal agencies or programs engage in  similar activities in order to determine whether opportunities exist to  reduce, eliminate, or better manage fragmentation, overlap, or  duplication. We identified a number of areas in which DOT performs  activities and determined that multiple administrations perform activities in  each area. Broadly, these areas fall into six functional categories:  administrative, economic development and consumer protection,  operating transportation systems, research, safety, and supporting  infrastructure projects (see table 1).
Multiple DOT administrations perform similar activities in each of the  areas we identified. For example, FAA, FHWA, FRA, FMCSA, FTA,  MARAD, NHTSA, PHMSA, and OST develop a variety of safety  regulations for airports and airlines, railroads, pipeline construction, and  the transportation of hazardous materials, among others. In addition, five  modal administrations (FAA, FHWA, FRA, FTA, and MARAD) and OST  support infrastructure projects by conducting grant-making activities for  airport planning and development, highway projects, and multi-modal  projects that cut across DOT administrations, among others. A different  group of five modal administrations (FAA, FMCSA, FRA, MARAD, and  NHTSA) and OST conduct activities related to overseeing economic and  consumer regulations, including enforcing shipping laws designed to  ensure federal projects use U.S.-flagged vessels, fuel-economy  standards for automakers, and regulations governing household goods  movers.
While we identified similar activities performed by multiple DOT  administrations, we determined that there were important reasons why  similar activities may be appropriate or necessary. Specifically, many of  these activities have different purposes, including achieving different  goals, serving different recipients, and meeting different statutory  requirements. For example, DOT performs a number of economic and  consumer-protection activities designed to achieve different goals and  outcomes, including supporting the U.S. shipping industry, protecting the  public from household goods movers that mislead or cheat them, and  improving the efficiency of motor vehicles. Additionally, DOT carries out  safety oversight of a number of different types of transportation operators  including airlines, motor carriers, pipelines, railroads and public-transit  operators, but the safety requirements and expertise necessary for  determining whether these types of operators are adhering to federal  regulations and operating safely can be very different. Further, DOT  carries out a number of different project-grant and credit programs  specified in statute with different requirements and conducts a number of  programs that receive funding from different sources such as the HTF,  the AATF, and general appropriations.
We also identified some general management activities conducted by  multiple DOT administrations that have similar goals or intended  recipients. Specifically, each DOT modal administration conducts  administrative activities in the areas of information technology, human  capital, and financial management, all of which have similar goals,  strategies, and beneficiaries. For example, each modal administration  and OST carry out human capital activities related to recruitment, hiring,  benefits, payroll, security assessments, and employee appraisal and  retention. Each administration also conducts some information technology  activities, such as hardware and software acquisitions, maintaining  networks, and troubleshooting. Finally, each administration also performs  financial management activities such as funds disbursement, auditing,  and reconciliation.
According to department officials, DOT has taken steps to better leverage  these similar administrative activities across modal administrations,  including adopting shared services, where services that multiple  administrations need are consolidated within a smaller number of  administrations. For example, DOT operates a single financial center in  Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to provide financial management services  such as accounting and transaction processing for each DOT  administration as well as for additional federal agencies. Additionally,  DOT has consolidated a number of human resources functions into a  single division within FHWA, which posts vacancy announcements and  collects employment applications, among other things. DOT officials told  us that consolidating these services has improved operational efficiency  and purchasing power. For example, officials from one of DOT’s smaller  modal administrations told us that they are able to take advantage of  DOT’s purchasing power to obtain better rates when purchasing  information technology hardware.
section_title: DOT Has a Variety of Methods to Coordinate Similar Activities
paragraphs: DOT has a variety of methods to coordinate similar activities and leverage  resources and knowledge. Some of these coordination efforts are focused  on individual projects that involve more than one administration, and  others are focused on broad topics, such as safety, in which all  administrations play a role. DOT has established some of these  coordination methods administratively. Others have been mandated by  law, such as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)  of 2015, which mandated changes to several areas of DOT operations  including research, safety, and environmental reviews. Current and  former DOT officials, state and local transportation officials,  representatives from private industry, and former congressional staff we interviewed, described several coordination and collaboration methods  used by DOT and its administrations, including:
Formal Coordinating Bodies: DOT has established a variety of  types of formal coordinating bodies including councils that bring  together staff from multiple administrations, centralized offices within  OST that have decision-making authority for DOT activities, and  cross-administration teams to handle individual multi-modal projects.  For example, OST convenes a formal safety council intended to  improve communication on safety-related issues. This council serves  as a forum for executives at each modal administration to discuss  emerging safety issues and coordinate responses. Additionally,  recently enacted legislation authorizing surface transportation  programs established a single office within OST—called the Build  America Bureau—to act as a point of contact and coordination for  entities seeking to use several DOT credit programs. In an example  of a cross-administration team, FMCSA and NHTSA established a  project-specific team with staff from both administrations to produce a  joint, proposed rulemaking on speed-limiting devices for large  commercial vehicles. The administrations’ proposed complementary  rules in September 2016 cover the areas of operation over which  each has jurisdiction: NHTSA’s rule would require manufacturers to  install the speed-limiting devices on new large commercial vehicles,  and FMCSA’s rule would require interstate motor carriers to use and  maintain the devices. DOT officials told us that participation in these  coordinating bodies and establishing cross-administration teams  allows the modal administrations to utilize expertise from across DOT  and has resulted in more consistent responses to issues. DOT  officials and experts we spoke with also told us that operating  coordinated multi-modal programs with centralized authority has  allowed DOT to more efficiently provide services and assistance to a  variety of projects using a consistent set of program rules and  requirements.
Coordinated Processes: DOT has coordinated processes for its  administrations to use in some areas such as developing regulations  and approving infrastructure projects. For example, DOT has an order  containing general provisions for the environmental review process at  all the modal administrations, and these requirements state that DOT  should, where possible, coordinate reviews into a single process.  Additionally, the FAST Act required DOT to apply existing  environmental review processes to certain FRA projects. DOT  officials told us that they are currently working on rulemaking and  guidance for the environmental review process as it applies to FRA.  DOT officials told us that standardized processes can avoid  duplicative work for projects requiring the approval of more than one  DOT administration, which can shorten the length of the  environmental review process and improve DOT’s efficiency.
Informal Coordination: DOT officials told us that while DOT has a  number of formal coordination mechanisms, much of the coordination  done by OST and the modal administrations occurs informally.  Officials said that this type of coordination is primarily relationship- driven and can take many forms including verbal information requests,  document sharing, or other methods. For example, FHWA officials  noted instances when staff informally shared information on methods  for conducting assessments of highway and railroad bridges with  FRA, whose inspection program began more recently. DOT officials  also said that they frequently use informal coordination to leverage  DOT’s multi-modal expertise when working on smaller projects that  might not be large enough to merit a formal cross-administration  team. DOT officials told us that informal coordination is flexible and  easy to conduct, and enhances communication across the modal  administrations.
section_title: Experts Suggested Areas Where DOT Could Make Improvements without Organizational Changes to More Efficiently and Effectively Carry Out Its Missions
paragraphs: According to the experts in transportation and organizational change we  met with, DOT could make operational improvements, but does not need  to implement organizational changes to efficiently and effectively carry out  its missions. Specifically, a majority of these experts told us that the  potential benefits of implementing a large-scale change in DOT’s  organizational structure—such as reorganizing the modal administrations  or restructuring the department to focus less on transportation modes— would probably not outweigh the costs of implementing these changes.  However, experts identified several areas in which they believe DOT  could make operational improvements to help the department more  efficiently and effectively carry out its missions: (1) collaboration and  coordination; (2) data quality and analytics; (3) regulation development;  (4) project delivery processes; and (5) addressing emerging issues.  Both we and the DOT OIG have repeatedly reported on challenges that  DOT’s individual modal administrations face in these areas. (See app.
IV for a list of relevant GAO and DOT OIG reports in each of these  areas.)
Expert opinion  “…there are definitely some operations that  could be improved… there are opportunities  for greater collaboration… especially in areas  that are clearly intermodal or multi-modal,  some form of… councils or other operating  bodies that work across the modes… seems  like an easy, maybe even a non-legislative  sort of a fix that could really make a difference  in certain areas.”
Collaboration and coordination: Efforts to support transportation  projects and address concerns—such as driver or operator fatigue—often  benefit from collaboration among DOT modal administrations, other  federal agencies, state and local stakeholders, and private industry.  Experts we spoke to stated that DOT should improve collaboration and  coordination efforts with these internal and external groups—efforts that  neither require organizational or regulatory changes. We and the DOT  OIG also have bodies of work suggesting ways to improve how DOT  collaborates and coordinates. For example, we recommended in 2012  that certain DOT modal administrations improve collaboration and  communication activities designed to help state and local governments  use intelligent-transportation system technologies to mitigate traffic  congestion.
Many of the concerns DOT is working to address impact multiple modes  of transportation and experts noted that there are opportunities for DOT to  improve how it coordinates internally across its modal administrations.  For example, experts discussed several of DOT’s ongoing internal  collaborative groups and noted that some groups could have been more  effective if they consistently included senior-level officials to provide  needed leadership and decision-making authority. Experts, as well as  DOT officials, also believed that DOT could more effectively leverage  existing expertise across administrations, such as in the area of safety,  and ensure that all affected modal administrations are represented when  discussing cross-modal issues. DOT officials we spoke with agreed that  ongoing collaboration and coordination is critical and noted that the use of  some internal coordination tools, such as crosscutting councils are  helpful, but could be more effective. For example, officials indicated that  coordination often occurs more informally, such as through individual relationships which can result in some officials not always being aware of  the collaboration efforts that are occurring outside of their own modal  administration. Further, officials noted that the strength and efficacy of  any DOT-wide or administration-level initiative is dependent on the  leadership and often the Secretary’s agenda.
Experts also discussed opportunities for DOT to improve how it  coordinates externally with state and local governments and other federal  agencies. Specifically, given the increase in projects that include multiple  modes of transportation, some experts noted that better collaboration with  state and local government agency partners is needed to provide  consistent information and help facilitate project development and  implementation. DOT officials we spoke with said a variety of methods  are used to coordinate its activities with state and local agencies to help  achieve DOT’s missions, including the use of standard processes for  developing regulations and approving infrastructure projects.
Lastly, experts discussed how decisions other agencies make can impact  DOT and suggested there are opportunities for DOT to improve how it  coordinates externally. Experts noted that strategies for addressing  issues such as climate change are being discussed by several different  agencies and that DOT could more effectively use existing interagency  offices or positions to ensure it is part of the discussions. We have found  that federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement  interagency collaborative efforts, such as establishing interagency task  forces.
Expert opinion  “We believe the data has value. We have this  enormous capability to generate so much data  now. So the question really is…  to be  more precise as to what data we want to  keep, what data we want to collect, and what  questions we want to answer.”
Data quality and analytics: DOT collects and uses data to carry out  most of its activities, including developing safety regulations, identifying  emerging safety issues, and conducting oversight. For example, FMCSA  uses inspection data to conduct oversight on specific motor carriers, and  NHTSA uses crash data to identify and implement policies to address  issues such as pedestrian and bicycle safety. As such, there may be  unintended consequences of not using data effectively. Experts we spoke  with raised concerns about the accuracy of transportation data and  believe there are opportunities within DOT’s current organizational  structure to do a better job collecting complete, relevant, consistent, and  reliable transportation data, which DOT and stakeholders need to make  decisions. Experts also discussed the need to focus on prioritizing the  data DOT collects to ensure they are of high quality and can be used to  answer specific transportation-related questions. We and the DOT OIG  have issued a number of reports expressing concern with the quality of  DOT’s data and how they are used. For example, in 2012, we identified  limitations in how FMCSA was using data to target new applicants  suspected of fraudulent activity for further investigation and  recommended FMCSA develop a data-driven tool. DOT officials from  the modal administrations agreed that improving data quality is important  and would allow DOT to leverage limited resources for identifying new  and emerging safety issues. The officials described several ongoing data  initiatives, such as a transportation data forum within DOT and efforts to  streamline existing data systems. However, officials also noted  challenges with addressing data quality, in part due to the number of  stakeholders involved in and responsible for transportation-related data  collection, including local and state officials and private entities. For  example, DOT officials noted that the responsibility of data collection  often falls to local and state officials who may not have the necessary  expertise to accurately report certain types of safety events. DOT officials  also cited challenges in establishing common definitions and measures  for collecting and using the data, and dealing with large volumes of data  that often come from numerous sources. Lastly, DOT officials noted that  statutes and regulations may also constrain DOT from collecting certain  types of data to support its mission.
Experts also emphasized the importance of having improved analytic  capabilities to ensure these data are used effectively. In particular,  experts noted that DOT could be a leader in providing analytical tools to  state and local government agencies that do not always have the  necessary expertise or resources to conduct data-driven evaluations.  Along those lines, we recently recommended, for example, that DOT  should identify appropriate freight data sources, information, and analytic  tools for transportation modes involved in the freight network and supply  chains. DOT officials agreed that data analytics are important, and  noted that a number of modal administrations have specific departments  or programs designed to maintain and analyze data on transportation  incidents and on federal inspection and enforcement actions. DOT  officials also noted that despite resource constraints, DOT has prioritized  the collection, maintenance, and management of data for several grant  programs.
Regulation development: Annually, DOT undertakes around one- hundred rulemakings—some of which, according to DOT officials, have  become more complex and technical in recent years—that range from  vehicle-to-vehicle communication safety standards (by NHTSA) to entry- level commercial driver training (by FMCSA) to underground storage  facilities for natural gas (by PHMSA). According to experts, DOT could  evaluate and consider changes to how it develops regulations that do not  require organizational changes to ensure that the department’s priorities  are coordinated and addressed. For example, experts suggested that  DOT consider methods for ensuring the timely review of rulemakings  across the modal administrations and noted that seeking stakeholder  input early in the regulation development process would save both time  and money, as well as improve the quality of the regulation itself.  Standards for internal control in the federal government state that federal  agencies should review policies and procedures to determine their  effectiveness in achieving their objectives and to determine if efforts— such as a regulation—are designed and implemented appropriately.  These standards also state that relevant, reliable, and timely information  should be used to make informed decisions. We also have found that  some DOT rulemakings developed by individual modal administrations  could benefit from additional data, and may not be completed in a timely  manner. For example, in 2014, we found that, despite acknowledging  the risks of federally unregulated pipelines, PHMSA had not taken timely  action on a rulemaking for addressing this risk and recommended that  PHMSA move forward with the rulemaking process it started in 2011.
DOT officials agreed that changes in the regulation development process  could offer a number of benefits. For example, according to FHWA  officials, increased coordination during the rulemaking process could  provide the affected modal administrations an opportunity to review  documents and more time to offer comments. According to FHWA  officials, this process could potentially reduce the number of revisions  needed to address and incorporate internal comments received. Other  DOT officials also noted that many of its rulemaking efforts have been  successful and well coordinated across DOT, as well as with other  stakeholders, including subject-matter experts and the private sector.  Specifically, officials from FAA discussed a number of processes and  tools that they use, including rulemaking advisory committees and  councils, a data tool that prioritizes upcoming rulemaking efforts, and a  comprehensive database that collects data from almost 200 sources  across government and industry. Other administrations also use similar  tools and several recent initiatives have offered officials from these  administrations the opportunity to learn more about FAA’s rulemaking  processes.
Expert opinion  “And the research under-pinning of policy [in  rulemaking] is an absolute prerequisite to its  implementation… there have to be sound  economic cost-benefit studies that are not  politically motivated.”
Experts also noted the importance of using data to drive regulatory  activity in a proactive manner, rather than conducting regulatory activity in  reaction to current events, such as an oil spill or a railway accident. We  have noted some of the challenges DOT modal administrations face in  developing and issuing regulations. For example, we recently found that  stakeholders in the commercial space industry have mixed opinions on  what, if any, legislative or regulatory changes are appropriate to  accommodate certain technologies. We have also noted that data  limitations, uncertainties, and lack of transparency may contribute to a  lack of confidence by important stakeholders in the implementation of a  rulemaking. DOT officials stated that it is challenging to expeditiously  move forward in the traditional regulatory process because of the  established procedures built-in to allow appropriate time for consultation,  public input, and coordinating across government stakeholders. We have  also found that there are risks to implementing rules too quickly,  especially when a rulemaking is controversial or technical. According to  experts, developing regulations may be even more challenging when  dealing with emerging issues and new technologies, such as automation  within passenger and commercial vehicles (see discussion below). These  technologies are developing rapidly, do not fit neatly within a single modal  administration’s current regulatory framework, and may require additional  coordination across administrations. One approach several DOT  administrations, including FAA and PHMSA, are using to address these  types of challenges is to rely on performance-based rules or consensus  standards—as opposed to prescriptive rules that dictate a specific  method for mitigating risk—for new regulations. According to FAA  officials, such an approach offers the private sector the flexibility to  address issues as they emerge, but also ensures safety is not  compromised as new technologies are introduced.
Expert opinion  “So it's not a one-size fits all… there are  places where uniformity makes sense. And  maybe that should be elevated up outside of  the modes. But in other places you need  flexibility. And that should remain down within  the modes so that they can be more  responsive to their stakeholders and taking  into consideration the impacts within that  particular mode.”
Project delivery processes: In the current fiscal environment, in which  federal resources are scarce, it is critical that the processes DOT uses to  annually distribute billions of dollars in federal transportation funds for  projects are clear, efficient, and effective. According to the experts we  spoke with, DOT could reduce barriers and challenges facing state and  local governments in the project delivery processes (e.g., funding,  financing, and environmental review) without organizational changes.  Experts believe that project delivery processes could be streamlined and  made more consistent across modal administrations to achieve cost and  time savings for state and local agencies. Further, experts suggested  creating a position within OST to help states and local agencies navigate  through the federal processes. We and the DOT OIG have bodies of work  on potential improvements to DOT’s project delivery processes within the  modal administrations, including ways to help address deficiencies in  adherence to key discretionary grant practices, strengthen processes for  overseeing grants, and improve guidance designed to ensure the process  for selecting grant awardees is consistently applied. For example, we  recommended in 2011 that FRA do more to document grant awards  decisions.
DOT officials acknowledged that there are differences in project delivery  processes between modal administrations, but noted that this is often the  result of requirements in statute or regulation. For example, the “Buy  America” provisions for FTA, FRA, and FHWA are specific to each  administration. Officials also noted several provisions in recent acts that  require DOT to streamline some project delivery processes, including the  previously discussed Build America Bureau, which is to provide  assistance and communicate best practices and financing and funding  opportunities to grant programs. Congress has passed numerous  provisions to accelerate the delivery of federal-aid highway and transit  projects since 2005 by streamlining the environmental review process for  state and local agencies, most recently in the FAST Act. According to  DOT officials, DOT is working to implement these changes and is  updating its department-wide guidance for conducting environmental  reviews. Lastly, the officials noted that DOT recently created a centralized  office within OST to be a resource for the modal administrations and help  accelerate the delivery of all DOT projects. However, DOT officials  cautioned that there may be unintended consequences associated with  implementing the suggestion from experts to create a new position within  OST, including adding a layer of bureaucracy that could create  inefficiencies.
Expert opinion  “…the rapid pace of technology is impacting  our traditional planning processes, in that,  when we look out 25 years, generally, we see  old technology embedded at 25 years, and we  see population growth, we see pollution  growth… but it's hard  because the  rules haven't kept up… and there's really no  guidelines ...”
Addressing emerging issues: The transportation world is quickly  evolving and DOT has been and likely will continue to be challenged to  proactively address emerging or anticipated issues to account for rapid  technological advancements, climate change, and intermodal issues,  among other concerns. Experts highlighted many of these challenges and  were concerned that DOT was not prepared to address them. For  example, experts frequently mentioned that DOT is falling behind the  private sector’s need for research and specific regulations for  autonomous vehicles and intelligent transportation systems. Experts also  mentioned the importance of considering environment and climate  change impacts of transportation in order to make wise decisions on how  to move freight, for example. We and the DOT OIG have issued a number  of reports on a range of emerging transportation issues that impact  several DOT modal administrations, including the need for DOT to  address new vehicle and aviation technologies—such as dealing with  cybersecurity and privacy concerns—and the changing trends in how and  where freight moves through our nation’s transportation system. For  example, in 2014, we recommended that DOT include a written statement  in its national freight strategic plan articulating the federal role in helping  to mitigate the impacts of projected increases in local-freight congestion.
We have also reported on emerging issues that individual DOT modal  administrations need to address, such as for PHMSA to ensure the safe  transportation of domestically produced oil and gas, which has increased  more than five times in recent years.
DOT officials also told us that they believe that as an agency, DOT is  having difficulty quickly identifying and reacting to emerging issues. While  officials from some modal administrations highlighted efforts—such as  performance plans and policy meetings—to regularly and strategically  discuss new areas in need of DOT’s attention, officials noted that DOT is  not always nimble enough to respond to emerging issues. Officials cited  the rapid pace of technology development, data and coordination  challenges, and the overall size and diversity of the transportation system  as a few of the reasons DOT cannot always react quickly.
While DOT officials noted ongoing initiatives within its modal  administrations intended to address challenges in the five areas identified  by experts, they agreed that more could be done but did not identify plans  to conduct a department-wide review in these areas. The current  administration, however, recently released an Executive Order and the  Budget Blueprint indicating that federal agencies, including DOT, are  expected to continue to assess their ability to efficiently and effectively  meet their missions. In addition, standards for internal control in the  federal government highlight the need for federal agencies to periodically  review, particularly as changes develop, whether their policies and  procedures are relevant, effective, and address risks. We have noted  that a review of this type should include an action plan to implement  corrective measures. Such an evaluation could help DOT to leverage  the success of initiatives within the modal administrations and define root  causes and solutions, including identifying necessary steps, to address  the areas discussed and more effectively implement programs within and  across its modal administrations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As DOT considers potential reorganization plans to improve its efficiency,  effectiveness, and accountability as required by the recent Executive  Order, as well as how it will implement the administration’s Budget  Blueprint, it will be important for DOT to take a holistic look at the  department. Having considered the costs and benefits of restructuring  how DOT is organized, experts told us that DOT can fulfill its many  missions through its existing organizational structure. Yet, experts also  recognize that DOT faces a growing number of challenges, including  adapting quickly to new technological innovations, which they said will  continue to blur the lines between the modes. DOT is undertaking a  number of efforts to address these challenges within its modal  administrations, but operational improvements could be achieved in  several broad areas: (1) collaboration and coordination; (2) data quality  and analytics; (3) regulation development; (4) project delivery processes;  and (5) emerging issues. While DOT must work with many transportation  stakeholders—including Congress, state and local governments, and the  private sector—to address challenges in these areas, it is important that  DOT take the lead in efforts to ensure a safe and efficient transportation  system. Undertaking a department-wide review of the areas experts  identified, particularly as they relate across the modal administrations,  provides an opportunity for DOT to assess how it can more effectively  achieve its missions and how best to position the department to  proactively address the challenges it faces.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To leverage and build upon the ongoing efforts within individual DOT  modal administrations and to address concerns raised by experts  regarding collaboration and coordination, data quality and analytics,  regulation development, project delivery processes, and addressing  emerging issues, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation: (1)  conduct a department-wide review of DOT’s current efforts to address  these concerns; and (2) develop an action plan with specific steps to  implement improvements, as identified, in these areas.
section_title: Agency Comments and Third-Party Views
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the DOT and OMB for their review  and comment. We also provided copies of this report to the 18 experts  who participated in our meeting in September 2016.
In written comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOT agreed with our  recommendation and provided several recent examples of actions taken  to improve the department’s operational performance, including the  creation of a centralized permitting center, establishing a regulatory- reform task force, and hiring new employees in leadership positions with  expertise in data analytics. DOT officials also indicated that following the  conclusion of our audit work, several new planning efforts had begun in  response to the recently released executive order, including two working  groups intended to identify efficiencies in DOT’s mission as well as efforts  to solicit employee feedback on ways to improve DOT’s efficiency and  effectiveness. We did not have the opportunity to evaluate these  initiatives. DOT and experts also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not comment on this report.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the  Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested  parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses the following objectives: (1) what activities multiple  Department of Transportation (DOT) modal administrations perform to  fulfill their missions and how, if at all, DOT coordinates these activities,  and (2) according to experts, what, if any, organizational changes or  operational changes could enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively  carry out its missions.
To identify activities performed by multiple DOT administrations and how  those activities are coordinated, we reviewed DOT’s organizing statutes  and amendments, and documentation on DOT’s overall mission and the  missions of the nine modal administrations, including strategic plans,  budget documents, and organizational manuals. We identified the nine  DOT modal administrations to include in our work by reviewing DOT’s  public website and relevant laws and statutes. We identified the missions  of DOT as a whole and the modal administrations by reviewing mission  statements and organizing statutes. In those cases in which we were not  able to find the missions of an administration in statute, we identified the  missions by reviewing their strategic plans or publicly available mission  statements. We identified the activities conducted by each DOT  administration and Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) by  reviewing their organizational manuals, if available, and fiscal year 2016  budget requests. We also used these sources to identify the program  offices contained within each administration and the missions and  activities of each of those offices. While we identified DOT activities, we  did not evaluate how effective these activities are at fulfilling DOT’s  missions. We identified areas of similarity within the list of activities by  reviewing DOT’s strategic plan to select general outcomes related to  DOT’s missions and objectives that more than one DOT administration  intends to achieve. We identified 19 of these activity areas, which broadly  related to administrative functions, economic development and consumer  protection, operating transportation systems, research, safety, and  supporting infrastructure projects. Finally, we grouped each of the  activities we identified into one of these functional categories. For  example, as part of our analysis of documentation from multiple modal  administrations websites and missions statements, we identified  numerous activities related to developing rulemaking, guidance, and policy intended to improve the safety of the transportation system. We  then noted that one of DOT’s mission priorities in its strategic plan is to  develop transportation safety regulations. Based on this evidence, we  determined this was an area in which multiple DOT administrations  performed activities, which we named Developing Safety Regulations.
To collect expert views on organizational or other changes that could  enable DOT to more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions, in  September 2016, with the assistance of the National Academies of  Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), we  convened a one and a half day GAO meeting with 18 experts.  Participants were identified and recommended by the National  Academies and approved by us using several criteria, including  experience with multiple modes of transportation and DOT  administrations, and expertise in organizational change, among others.  Experts included former DOT officials, representatives from local and  state transportation agencies, private businesses that use our nation’s  transportation system, and other experts in transportation policy and  organizational change management (see table 2).
We asked the expert meeting participants to comment on DOT’s  organizational structure and potential areas for improvement in the six  functional categories in which DOT performs activities identified in  objective 1: administrative functions, economic development and  consumer protection, operating transportation systems, research, safety,  and supporting infrastructure projects. Following the meeting, two  analysts conducted a content analysis of the expert meeting transcript  using NVivo software to identify the areas for improvement that were  discussed most frequently during the expert meeting. Each analyst  independently reviewed one half of the transcript to identify instances  where the areas were discussed. Once each analyst had completed  going through their respective sections, the other analyst verified the  coding of the other analyst. If there was a disagreement, the analysts  discussed their assessment and would come to a final determination on  the categorization. Based on the results of our content analysis, we  determined 15 areas for improvement were the most frequently  discussed. The 15 areas were used to develop a brief follow-up  questionnaire for the experts to verify what was discussed at the meeting.  We conducted pretests with two of the experts before emailing the  finalized PDF questionnaire form to all 18 experts who attended the  meeting. We received 17 out of 18 responses from our experts (94  percent response rate). Additionally, we developed a list of follow-up  questions for DOT officials from OST and all nine modal administrations,  similar to the questions we asked experts in the questionnaire. We  reviewed the responses received from experts and DOT officials to  determine which of the 15 areas were considered to be the most  important to address or as having the biggest potential payoff in helping  DOT more efficiently and effectively carry out its missions. Based on this  analysis, we identified five areas to discuss in greater detail in our  report—(1) collaboration and coordination; (2) data quality and analytics;  (3) regulation development; (4) project delivery processes; and (5)  addressing emerging issues. The views represented by the experts from  whom we gathered information are not generalizable to those of all  experts on DOT’s organizational structure and operations; however, we  were able to secure the participation of a diverse, highly qualified group of  experts and believe their views provide a balanced and informed  perspective on the topics discussed.
In addition, we reviewed GAO reports issued in the past five years and  DOT OIG reports that discussed the areas for improvement experts  identified, many of which included recommendations for DOT. We  identified the most relevant prior GAO work in the 5 areas identified by  experts and DOT officials.
To address both of our objectives, we interviewed DOT officials from OST  and all nine modal administrations. To gather background information, we  also interviewed additional stakeholders with a range of transportation  experience including former DOT officials, representatives from state and  local transportation agencies, transportation stakeholders from consulting  firms, non-profits and think tanks, as well as academics in the field of  organizational change (see table 3).
We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to May 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Activities Performed by the Department of Transportation’s Administrations
paragraphs: We identified 19 areas in which more than one administration within the  United States Department of Transportation (DOT) performs activities  (see table 1). Broadly, these areas fall into six functional categories:  administrative, economic development and consumer protection,  operating transportation systems, research, safety, and supporting  infrastructure projects. These areas outline the primary areas of activities  that DOT undertakes to achieve its intended outcomes; the areas are not  a comprehensive list of every area in which DOT performs activities. We  identified the DOT administrations that perform activities in these areas,  and tables 4 to 22 show examples of these activities.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix IV: Relevant Reports from GAO and Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General
paragraphs: GAO and the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General  (DOT OIG) have bodies of work related to topics the experts we spoke  with most frequently cited as being important for DOT to address. Below  are reports issued by GAO and DOT OIG in each of these areas: (1)  collaboration and coordination; (2) data quality and analytics; (3) project  delivery processes; (4) regulation development; and (5) addressing  emerging issues.
subsections: section_title: Collaboration and Coordination
paragraphs: GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled  Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency.  GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.
GAO. Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs a More Comprehensive Approach to  Address Cybersecurity as Agency Transitions to NextGen. GAO -15-370.  Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015.
GAO. Drug-Impaired Driving: Additional Support Needed for Public  Awareness Initiatives. GAO-15-293. Washington, D.C.: February 24,  2015.
GAO. Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to  Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups. GAO-14-220. Washington,  D.C.: February 14, 2014.
GAO. Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing  Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.:  September 27, 2012.
GAO. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Coordination  Efforts Could be Further Strengthened. GAO-12-647. Washington, D.C.:  June 20, 2012.
GAO. Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on  Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety.  GAO-12-388. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012.
GAO. Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration  and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage  Congestion. GAO-12-308. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2012.
OIG, DOT. FHWA Needs to Strengthen Its Oversight of State  Transportation Improvement Programs. ST2017019. Washington, D.C.:  January 5, 2017.
OIG, DOT. Insufficient Guidance, Oversight, and Cooperation Hinder  PHMSA’s Full Implementation of Mandates and Recommendations. ST- 2017-002. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2016.
OIG, DOT. FAA Lacks a Clear Process for Identifying and Coordinating  NextGen Long-Term Research and Development. AV-2016-094.  Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2016.
OIG, DOT. Improvements Needed in FMCSA’s Plan for Inspecting Buses  at the United States-Mexico Border. MH-2014-007. Washington, D.C.:  November 26, 2013.
section_title: Data Quality and Analytics
paragraphs: GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled  Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency.  GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.
GAO. Motor Carriers: Better Information Needed to Assess Effectiveness  and Efficiency of Safety Interventions. GAO-17-49. Washington, D.C.:  October 27, 2016.
GAO. West Coast Ports: Better Supply Chain Information Could Improve  DOT’s Freight Efforts. GAO-17-23. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2016.
GAO. Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit  from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts. GAO-14-740.  Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2014.
GAO. Federal Motor Carrier Safety: Modifying the Compliance, Safety,  Accountability Program Would Improve the Ability to Identify High Risk  Carriers. GAO-14-114. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2014.
GAO. Cargo Tank Trucks: Improved Incident Data and Regulatory  Analysis Would Better Inform Decisions about Safety Risks. GAO-13-721.  Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2013.
GAO. Pipeline Safety: Better Data and Guidance Needed to Improve  Pipeline Operator Incident Response. GAO-13-168. Washington, D.C.:  January 23, 2013.
GAO. Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on  Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety.  GAO-12-388. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2012.
GAO. Motor Carrier Safety: New Applicant Reviews Should Expand to  Identify Freight Carriers Evading Detection. GAO-12-364. Washington,  D.C.: March 22, 2012.
OIG, DOT. FRA’s Oversight of Hazardous Materials Shipments Lacks  Comprehensive Risk Evaluation and Focus on Deterrence. ST-2016-020.  Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2016.
OIG, DOT. Inadequate Data and Analysis Undermine NHTSA’s Efforts to  Identify and Investigate Vehicle Safety Concerns. ST-2015-063.  Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2015.
OIG, DOT. Program and Data Limitations Impede the Effectiveness of  FAA’s Hazardous Materials Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program. AV- 2015-034. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2015.
section_title: Regulation Development
paragraphs: GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled  Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency.  GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.
GAO. Commercial Space: FAA Should Examine How to Appropriately  Regulate Space Support Vehicles. GAO-17-100. Washington, D.C.:  November 25, 2016.
GAO. Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Launch  Industry Developments Present Multiple Challenges. GAO-15-706.  Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2015.
GAO. Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is  Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed  to Improve Pipeline Safety. GAO-14-667. Washington, D.C.: August 21,  2014.
GAO. Cargo Tank Trucks: Improved Incident Data and Regulatory  Analysis Would Better Inform Decisions about Safety Risks. GAO-13-721.  Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2013.
GAO. Aviation Rulemaking: Further Reform Is Needed to Address Long- standing Problems. GAO-01-821. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.
OIG, DOT. Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2017. PT-2017- 007. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2016.
OIG, DOT. Insufficient Guidance, Oversight, and Cooperation Hinder  PHMSA’s Full Implementation of Mandates and Recommendations. ST- 2017-002. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2016.
section_title: Project Delivery Processes
paragraphs: GAO. DOT Discretionary Grants: Problems with Hurricane Sandy Transit  Grant Selection Process Highlight the Need for Additional Accountability.  GAO-17-20. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2016.
GAO. Rail Grant Oversight: Greater Adherence to Leading Practices  Needed to Improve Grants Management. GAO-16-544. Washington,  D.C.: May 26, 2016.
GAO. Public Transit: Updated Guidance and Expanded Federal Authority  Could Facilitate Bus Procurement. GAO-15-676. Washington, D.C.:  September 10, 2015.
GAO. Intercity Passenger Rail: Recording Clearer Reasons for Awards  Decisions Would Improve Otherwise Good Grantmaking Practices.  GAO-11-283. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2011.
OIG, DOT. Vulnerabilities Exist in Implementing Initiatives Under MAP-21  Subtitle C to Accelerate Project Delivery. ST2017029. Washington, D.C.:  March 6, 2017.
OIG, DOT. Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2017. PT-2017- 007. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2016.
OIG, DOT. FHWA Does Not Effectively Ensure States Account for  Preliminary Engineering Costs and Reimburse Funds as Required. ST- 2016-095. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2016.
OIG, DOT. FTA Monitored Grantees’ Corrective Actions, but Lacks Policy  and Guidance to Oversee Grantees with Restricted Access to Federal  Funds. ST-2016-058. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2016.
OIG, DOT. Weak Internal Controls for Collecting Delinquent Debt Put  Millions of DOT Dollars at Risk. FI-2015-065. Washington, D.C.: July 9,  2015.
section_title: Addressing Emerging Issues
paragraphs: GAO. Train Braking: DOT’s Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled  Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency.  GAO-17-122. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2016.
GAO. West Coast Ports: Better Supply Chain Information Could Improve  DOT’s Freight Efforts. GAO-17-23. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2016.
GAO. Vehicle Cybersecurity: DOT and Industry Have Efforts Under Way,  but DOT Needs to Define Its Role in Responding to a Real-world Attack.  GAO-16-350. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2016.
GAO. Vehicle Safety: Enhanced Project Management of New Information  Technology Could Help Improve NHTSA’s Oversight of Safety Defects.  GAO-16-312. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2016.
GAO. Unmanned Aerial Systems: FAA Continues Progress toward  Integration into the National Airspace. GAO-15-610. Washington, D.C.:  July 16, 2015.
GAO. Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs a More Comprehensive Approach to  Address Cybersecurity as Agency Transitions to Next Gen. GAO-15-370.  Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015.
GAO. Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit  from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts. GAO-14-740.  Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2014.
GAO. Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is  Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed  to Improve Pipeline Safety. GAO-14-667. Washington, D.C.: August 21,  2014.
GAO. Rail Safety: Improved Human Capital Planning Could Address  Emerging Safety Oversight Challenges. GAO-14-85. Washington, D.C.:  December 9, 2013.
GAO. Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Vehicle  Technologies Expected to Offer Safety Benefits, but a Variety of  Deployment Challenges Exist. GAO-14-13. Washington, D.C.: November  1, 2013.
GAO. Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration  and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage  Congestion. GAO-12-308. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2012.
OIG, DOT. FAA Lacks a Risk-Based Oversight Process for Civil  Unmanned Aircraft Systems. AV-2017-018. Washington, D.C.: December  1, 2016.
OIG, DOT. Top Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2017. PT-2017- 007. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2016.
OIG, DOT. DOT Cybersecurity Incident Handling and Reporting is  Ineffective and Incomplete. FI-2017-001. Washington, D.C.: October 13,  2016.
OIG, DOT. FAA Faces Significant Barriers to Safely Integrate Unmanned  Aircraft Systems Into the National Airspace System. AV-2014-061.  Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2014.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant  Director), Matthew Cook (Analyst in Charge), Paul Aussendorf, Dan  Bertoni, Melissa Bodeau, Steve Cohen, Cathy Colwell, Alex Fedell, Cam  Flores, Farrah Graham, Brandon Haller, Phil Herr, Catherine Kim,  Hannah Laufe, Heather MacLeod, Ned Malone, Sara Ann Moessbauer,  Josh Ormond, Carl Ramirez, Alex Severn, Sharon Silas, Sarah Veale,  Sara Vermillion, and Susan Zimmerman made significant contributions to  this report.