The commercial motor-carrier industry is a vital part of the U.S. economy. As of December 2015, FMCSA estimated that there were 551,150 active carriers and approximately 6 million commercial drivers operating in the United States. The domestic commercial motor-carrier industry includes a range of businesses, including private and for-hire freight transportation, passenger carriers, and specialized transporters of hazardous materials. These carriers also range from small carriers with only one vehicle that is owned and operated by a single individual, to large corporations that own tens of thousands of vehicles. FMCSA is responsible for overseeing this large and diverse industry. In fiscal year 2016, FMCSA had a budget of approximately $580 million and more than 1,000 staff members located at its Washington, D.C., headquarters, four regional service centers, and 52 division offices. FMCSA establishes regulations for all interstate motor carriers in addition to intrastate hazardous-material carriers. FMCSA regulations set requirements, among others, for the motor vehicle parts and accessories—“equipment”—required for safe operation. For example, FMCSA’s regulations require vehicles to have certain lights, tire tread depth, and parking brakes. Other FMCSA regulations require carriers and their drivers to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain their vehicles. Before beginning their trip each day, commercial motor vehicle drivers must conduct a pre-trip inspection to ensure that their vehicles are in safe operating condition, meaning that they meet the maintenance requirements set forth in FMCSA regulations. Commercial driver’s license tests require drivers to show they can inspect the engine components, brakes, steering, and other equipment. If during the pre- trip inspection the driver identifies an equipment problem that would affect the safe operation of the vehicle, the driver must ensure it is repaired before starting a trip. At the end of each day, drivers are also required to prepare a daily vehicle inspection report (DVIR), which lists any equipment problems identified that day. Drivers submit the DVIRs to their carrier, which must repair any issues before sending the vehicle on another trip. Regulations also require carriers to conduct comprehensive inspections of their vehicles annually. FMCSA regulations set the minimum requirements for commercial motor vehicles, but individual carriers may have their own additional requirements regarding when and how their vehicles are inspected and repaired. To oversee the safety performance of the commercial motor carrier industry, FMCSA and state agencies such as highway patrols perform roadside inspections of carriers’ vehicles. These roadside inspections are intended to provide a snapshot of commercial motor vehicles’ maintenance and assess the effectiveness of carriers’ maintenance programs. Specially trained and certified personnel serve as inspectors and select commercial motor vehicles for inspection as they pass through a roadside inspection location such as a weigh station. The inspector compares the vehicle’s condition to requirements listed in FMCSA’s regulations and issues a violation if there are discrepancies. If the inspector determines that the violation could likely cause an accident or breakdown (for example, if more than 20 percent of the vehicle’s brakes are defective) the vehicle is placed out-of-service until it is repaired. FMCSA regulations prohibit carriers from operating a vehicle that has been deemed “out-of-service” by an inspector. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, an association comprised of federal and state commercial- vehicle safety officials and private industry representatives, provides guidance on the criteria that render a vehicle out-of-service. Even if violations are found, if the vehicle is not deemed out-of-service, the driver is allowed to continue driving, though FMCSA regulations require carriers to repair all violations before the vehicle starts another trip. In addition, within 15 days of receiving the violation, carriers must certify they have made repairs by signing a copy of the inspection report and sending it to the state department of transportation. See figure 1 for four examples of vehicle maintenance violations—the top two depict improper load securement and the bottom two depict missing wheel fasteners. In both rows, the violation on the right is an out-of-service violation. FMCSA uses the data on violations submitted by inspectors to rank carriers’ relative safety performance in seven categories and assign carriers to a percentile in each. One of the categories, the vehicle maintenance Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC), takes into account violations related to failing to properly maintain a commercial motor vehicle and failing to secure loads. FMCSA uses these BASIC percentiles to identify and target “high-risk” carriers for interventions, such as warning letters and on-site investigations. In 2014, we reported on the effectiveness of SMS and found that FMCSA faces challenges in reliably assessing safety risks for the majority of carriers. We recommended that FMCSA revise the SMS methodology to better account for limitations in drawing comparisons of safety performance information across carriers. As of November 2016, FMCSA has not implemented our recommendation. The FAST Act directed FMCSA to address the issues raised in our report and required that FMCSA remove the BASIC percentiles from public view on its website until then, which it has done. One of the challenges in assessing the safety impact of a potential system for self-reporting equipment problems is its hypothetical nature. As described above, based on one of the provisions in the FAST Act and discussions with FMCSA and stakeholders, we made a number of assumptions about such a system. We assumed that a self-reporting system would: apply only to problems identified during a driver’s day, that is between the pre-trip inspection and the end of the day when the driver vehicle inspection report is completed; not apply to equipment problems that would result in out-of-service require drivers to report equipment problems and repairs through a telephone hotline or Internet website or other electronic platform; require repairs to be made before the beginning of the next day on duty (e.g., within a day of when the problem was reported, if the driver ended his trip that evening and planned another trip the following day); still result in a carrier receiving a violation for the equipment problem if pulled over for a roadside inspection, but once a self-reported equipment problem was repaired within the requisite time frame and FMCSA was so notified, FMCSA would exclude the violation from the carrier’s relative safety ranking (i.e., BASIC percentile for vehicle maintenance); and not prompt FMCSA to take action if a carrier or driver self-reported an equipment problem, but never received a violation for that equipment problem. Figure 2 below illustrates some of the key differences between the current process for identifying and repairing equipment problems and the process under a potential self-reporting system with the features assumed above. The Office of Management and (OMB) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) provide guidance on estimating a program’s societal impact, such as its health and safety benefits, through a benefit- cost analysis. For example, DOT’s Economic Analysis Primer states that a benefit-cost analysis requires the identification of a base case—usually the status quo—so that the benefits and costs associated with implementing the new program can be compared against this base. For a new program designed to affect safety, identifying the base case and the potential benefits of the new program generally requires data on past events related to the type of bad outcomes (i.e., injuries and deaths) that the new program is expected to reduce. Even after putting some parameters on a hypothetical system for self- reporting equipment problems (i.e., our assumptions), estimating its overall safety impact is challenging for two key reasons: 1. We did not identify any conclusive data on the “base case” or status quo for a self-reporting system—that is, data on how non-out-of- service equipment problems are related to safety outcomes. FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that equipment problems such as braking capacity, tire or wheel failure, or shifting cargo were the critical reason for a crash in about 10 percent of the crashes for which a critical reason was assigned to a truck, as reported in the Large Truck Crash Causation Study. However, this study was issued 11 years ago and did not separately present data for or otherwise discuss the extent to which non-out-of-service equipment problems were related to crashes. Further, our review of literature and interviews with FMCSA did not identify any additional data. Consequently, there is no baseline against which to evaluate the extent to which safety may be improved with the implementation of such a system. 2. Even if such data were available, we determined that an assessment of potential safety impacts would also require information on the extent to which a self-reporting system would change the frequency or speed with which drivers make equipment repairs. This would require information on both the frequency and speed with which carriers currently make repairs, and how a self-reporting system would change that behavior. Both, however, are unknown and difficult to determine because they would require predicting behavior under hypothetical conditions. For a self-reporting system to impact safety, carriers and drivers would have to use it, but the majority of carriers and drivers we interviewed said their use of a potential self-reporting system would depend on various factors. The most frequently cited factor was ease of use. For example, some said they preferred a telephone hotline to a web-based application; others said the opposite. One carrier and one driver said they would use a self-reporting system if they thought they were traveling a route where an inspection was likely. Another carrier said it might use a self-reporting system if it afforded them increased flexibility to wait to repair low risk equipment problems at a less expensive repair facility, such as the carrier’s own maintenance facility. Representatives from five of six industry and safety associations we interviewed said they would be unlikely to support a self-reporting system as outlined above. Industry and safety representatives cited reasons such as an administrative burden for drivers and carriers, and potentially negative safety impacts, as described below. Representatives from one industry association noted that a self-reporting system should allow drivers to simply record an equipment problem in their driver vehicle inspection report (DVIR) when they notice the problem. If by chance a driver was pulled over subsequent to recording in the DVIR, the driver could show the record to the inspector and not receive a violation for that equipment problem. However, as discussed above, for FMCSA to ensure that self-reported equipment problems were repaired, FMCSA would first have to receive a record of a violation. Then, after receiving certification of the accompanying repair, FMCSA would ensure that the violation was not included in the calculation of the carrier’s vehicle maintenance BASIC percentile. Thus, noting the equipment problem on a DVIR would not be sufficient. To impact safety, a self-reporting system would also have to prompt drivers and carriers to change the way they identify and repair equipment problems, yet the majority of carriers and drivers we interviewed said the system would not change, for example, how quickly they made repairs. As described above, FMCSA regulations require drivers to conduct a pre- trip and end-of-day inspection of their vehicle and to ensure that any identified issues are repaired before driving. Carriers and drivers we interviewed said that if they identify an equipment problem en route, that is, after their pre-trip inspection, they work with their carrier to determine when and where to repair the problem. Many carriers and drivers we interviewed said they would continue to identify and repair equipment problems the same way and with the same speed under a system for self- reporting equipment problems. More generally, the majority of carriers and drivers we interviewed stated that any safety impacts of a self-reporting system—positive or negative— would be minimal. For example, three drivers thought a self-reporting system could potentially yield some safety benefits if it incentivized drivers to do more thorough pre-trip or en route inspections. This could lead to better identification and quicker repair of equipment problems. On the other hand, three carriers and two other drivers we interviewed thought a self-reporting system could potentially yield some negative safety impacts if it incentivized some drivers to delay or avoid making repairs for problems they had self-reported. Further, FMCSA officials and safety association representatives we interviewed stated that they believed a self-reporting system could lead to negative safety outcomes. FMCSA officials said that a self-reporting system could result in carriers trying to “game the system,” for example by using it to report equipment problems during a trip that should have been identified in a pre-trip inspection and repaired before the trip began. FMCSA officials said that this type of delayed repair could lead to a more serious maintenance condition occurring. Representatives from safety associations said that carriers and drivers might delay making repairs until the end of any permitted time period or might engage in distracted driving while typing or calling in an en route equipment problem on their cell phones. Neither we nor FMCSA identified any statutory or regulatory barriers to establishing a system for self-reporting equipment problems. When Congress established FMCSA in 1999, it granted the agency authority to develop and enforce commercial motor-vehicle safety regulations and practices to promote a safe and efficient transportation system. With this authority, FMCSA created regulations setting requirements for vehicles’ operating condition and roadside inspections. Under this authority, FMCSA could create a system for self-reporting equipment problems. Similarly, we did not identify any barrier in existing regulations to establishing a self-reporting system. FMCSA officials stated that if a self- reporting system were in place, vehicles would still be required to meet the minimum vehicle condition requirements and inspectors would continue to inspect vehicles to ensure compliance with these regulations and issue violations. Rather than altering existing regulations, FMCSA officials said a potential self-reporting system would require FMCSA to change its internal policy document that outlines how FMCSA calculates carriers’ vehicle maintenance BASIC percentiles. While the technology exists for FMCSA to establish a system for self- reporting equipment problems, the agency may face challenges implementing such a system. FMCSA officials stated they could design a self-reporting system to be compatible with the agency’s existing IT systems. FMCSA currently uses its Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) to manage motor carrier and driver performance data, including inspection and investigation results. FMCSA officials said they could potentially use MCMIS to manage self- reported equipment problem information, but there might be challenges matching self-reported vehicle maintenance issues with violations issued by inspectors in the MCMIS database. For example, to exclude equipment problem violations that were self-reported and repaired from BASIC percentile calculations, FMCSA would have to match the self- reported equipment problem and repair to a corresponding report of a violation issued by an inspector for that same equipment problem. This could be difficult if, for example, the driver and inspector coded the equipment problem differently (e.g., driver recorded “inoperative required lamps” and inspector recorded “inoperative head lamps”). Safety advocacy groups believed more oversight would be necessary to ensure carriers actually made repairs, but FMCSA and multiple carriers believed showing proof of repairs for every report (e.g., receipts or written repair orders) as opposed to simply self-certifying a repair, would be too time- consuming. In addition, we found in October 2016 that FMCSA has faced long- standing delays with software development. Creating a self-reporting system could place new demands on FMCSA’s information technology resources. FMCSA has put a hold on rolling out new enforcement strategies, such as offsite investigations (investigations conducted remotely using documents submitted by carriers, such as toll receipts, border crossing records, or drug testing records), until the agency has finished creating an improved software system to manage these enforcement activities. Developing a self-reporting system could further delay these software improvements. FMCSA officials estimated it could take between 3 and 5 years to develop a self-reporting system. FMCSA officials, one safety advocacy group, and an industry group we interviewed echoed this concern, suggesting that a self-reporting system could divert FMCSA resources from other IT priorities. For example, one industry group thought FMCSA should focus on improving its DataQ system, which allows carriers to challenge, and correct as appropriate, violations appearing on their records. Finally, FMCSA officials told us that building, implementing, and maintaining a self-reporting system would require significant resources. For example, FMCSA would need to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a process that FMCSA officials said has been time consuming in the past. The PRA requires agencies to minimize the paperwork burden of their information collections (e.g., driver’s license and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) information in the case of a self- reporting system) and evaluate whether a proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions. To do so, the agency must complete an “information collection request,” which includes a report on why certain information is being collected and an estimate of the cost to the public. Carriers and drivers could also face challenges using a potential system for self-reporting equipment problems. For example, both a web application and telephone hotline would require drivers to have cell service—which is not always the case for drivers in remote areas of the country. It could be possible, therefore, for a driver to be stopped for an inspection before he was able to report an equipment problem. If the system were a web application, drivers would need smartphones to report an equipment problem, but some drivers may not have one. If the system were a telephone hotline, two carriers and one driver worried the hotline could become inundated with calls with long wait times, though as noted above, it is not clear how many carriers would utilize such a system. Carriers or drivers could also face challenges accurately entering required information. For example, FMCSA could require drivers to enter their 17- digit VIN along with their Commercial Driver’s License number when reporting an equipment problem or repair, but entering this many digits could yield errors. Additionally, drivers would need to identify the violation that most closely matched their equipment problem, out of more than 300 potential vehicle maintenance violations. In some instances, that may be difficult to do; for example, there are 17 different violations related to reflective sheeting (e.g., not having reflectors on mud flaps). As discussed above, the way a driver or carrier self-reported a problem could differ from the way an inspector reported the violation. Similarly, identifying whether an equipment problem could render a vehicle out of service could be challenging. Equipment problems may or may not place a vehicle out-of- service depending on their severity. For example, regulations require a vehicle’s front tire treads to be at least 4/32 of an inch deep. Drivers will receive a violation if the tread is less than that requirement, but will only be placed out of service if the tread is less than 2/32 of an inch deep. Thus, it is possible that a driver could self-report a “tire tread depth” problem into a self-reporting system, but be operating with an out-of- service tread depth. According to our cost-estimating guidance, creating an accurate cost estimate for any program requires a description of the system and its technical and performance characteristics—characteristics that are not currently known for this self-reporting system. For example, we do not know whether the system would be a web-based application or a staffed hotline, nor do we know the extent to which FMCSA would need to review reports submitted in the system. Design options such as these would affect the number of FMCSA staff needed to operate and maintain the system and would require different amounts of IT investment. Therefore, without knowing these design characteristics, we cannot estimate the initial cost of developing a potential self-reporting system or the continued costs of maintaining it with any degree of confidence. However, two existing DOT self-reporting systems can provide a benchmark for potential costs of a self-reporting system, though these systems differ from an equipment problem self-reporting system in substantive ways. FMCSA maintains the National Consumer Complaint Database (NCDDB), which allows drivers and the general public to submit complaints ranging from moving companies damaging household goods to drivers being forced to operate unsafe equipment. According to FMCSA officials, this database received approximately 20,000 reports in 2015, and cost approximately $1 million to operate in that year. While the NCCDB seems similar to a system for self-reporting equipment problems in that it allows drivers to self-report information through both a website and hotline, it differs in that NCCDB complaints do not feed into another FMCSA IT system, as self-reported equipment problems would need to. FMCSA officials thought that linking the self-reported equipment problems and MCMIS data systems would be the most costly part of developing a system for self-reporting equipment problems. FAA maintains the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), which allows pilots, flight attendants, and maintenance employees to voluntarily report safety incidents to help FAA identify potential precursors to accidents. FAA officials reported that in 2015 ASAP received 98,000 reports and cost approximately $23 million in personnel costs only. This amount did not include the cost to establish ASAP or costs for operating the system itself. ASAP is similar to a motor carrier system for self-reporting equipment problems in that by self-reporting, users can avoid violations, but differs in a number of key ways. For example, ASAP does not include reporting for equipment problems, its focus is on identifying potential precursors to accidents, and it devotes significant resources to assembling committees to review each ASAP report and identify a corresponding corrective action, something which a motor carrier self- reporting system likely would not. While we cannot estimate costs for the type of self-reporting system described in this report with any degree of confidence, FMCSA broadly estimated that a self-reporting system would cost between $5 and $10 million to establish and operate for the first year. FMCSA officials said this estimate did not use other DOT self-reporting systems as a benchmark nor did it explicitly include training, testing, or data storage—some of the factors that GAO’s cost-estimating guide identifies as key to establishing and maintaining a new electronic system. Therefore, this estimate may not cover the full cost of establishing a system for self-reporting equipment problems. We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of FMCSA. In addition, the report is 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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix I. In addition to the individual named above, H. Brandon Haller (Assistant Director), Sarah Farkas (Analyst-in-Charge), Amy Abramowitz, Russell Burnett, David Hooper, Catrin Jones, Delwen Jones, and Malika Rice made key contributions to this report.

Summary: In 2015, more than 4,000 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks. To identify carriers with the highest crash risk, FMCSA uses information from roadside inspections and crashes to rank each carrier's safety performance relative to other carriers in seven categories, including one on vehicle maintenance. Some stakeholders have proposed a system for carriers or their drivers to self-report en route vehicle equipment problems to FMCSA. Reported equipment problems that were repaired within a certain time period would not affect the carrier's relative ranking, potentially incentivizing carriers to make repairs more quickly. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act included a provision for GAO to examine the cost and feasibility of establishing a system for carriers or drivers to self-report vehicle equipment problems to FMCSA. This report examines (1) the potential safety impacts of a self-reporting system and (2) factors that could affect its feasibility and cost. GAO reviewed relevant regulations, information on other existing DOT self-reporting systems, and prior related GAO work. GAO also interviewed a non-generalizable sample of representatives from six industry and safety associations, six carriers, and six drivers about this potential system for self-reporting equipment problems. GAO selected carriers to include those with diverse fleet sizes and average distances traveled, and drivers from six additional carriers. DOT provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. Establishing a system that would provide incentives for trucking companies to self-report equipment problems may not necessarily yield safety benefits. Most stakeholders GAO interviewed—including selected carriers and drivers—thought a self-reporting system would be unlikely to produce safety benefits, stating that it would not incentivize quicker repairs. If repairs are not made more quickly, there would be no positive impact on safety. Three drivers, however, thought a self-reporting system could yield some safety benefits if it incentivized drivers to do more thorough inspections of their vehicles. Officials from industry groups and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) noted that a self-reporting system could negatively impact safety, such as by encouraging distracted driving if drivers report equipment problems on their cell phones while driving. Moreover, estimating the potential safety impacts of such a system requires information that is not currently available, such as how equipment problems that would be permitted to be self-reported are related to crashes. Example of a Driver Receiving a Violation for a Previously Identified Equipment Problem under Current System and under a Self-Reporting One FMCSA has the statutory and regulatory authority to establish a system for self-reporting equipment problems, and technology exists to create it, but its costs are unknown. Also, establishing such a system could pose challenges for FMCSA, carriers, and drivers. For example, developing a new system could delay efforts FMCSA has under way to improve its information technology, and carriers or drivers may have difficulty selecting their specific equipment problem from the more than 300 potential vehicle maintenance violations. Further, without information on key design features of a self-reporting system, such as whether reporting would be through a telephone hotline or a web-application, it is not possible to estimate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. FMCSA developed a rough estimate that a self-reporting system would cost between $5 and $10 million to establish and operate for the first year.