Most of the federal funding for highway and transit infrastructure and safety improvements is provided by FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA. FHWA provides about $38 billion each year, or nearly 93 percent of its overall budget, to states to design, construct and maintain the nation’s roadway and bridge infrastructure through the federal-aid highway program. These funds are distributed through annual apportionments established by statutory formulas. FHWA oversees the federal-aid highway program, primarily through its 52 division offices located in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FHWA division offices have 10 to 61 staff each, depending on the size of the state’s highway program and other factors. As of October 2014, FHWA had approximately 2,900 staff—about two-thirds in the field and the remaining third at FHWA headquarters in Washington, D.C. FTA provides approximately $10.5 billion each year for transit project grants to states, transit agencies, and MPOs. The grant funding provided by FTA represents 98 percent of its overall $10.7 billion budget; the remaining portion of the budget funds the administration and oversight of its various grant programs by about 500 federal employees in its Washington, D.C., headquarters and 10 regional offices. NHTSA provides about $500 million per year, or about 60 percent of its annual budget of approximately $800 million, to state highway safety offices through grants. NHTSA awards these grants to state highway safety offices to support projects that focus on mitigating behavioral factors associated with crashes and improving traffic safety information systems, among other things. The remaining third of NHTSA’s budget supports various highway and vehicle safety research and enforcement programs. NHTSA employs about 600 employees in its Washington, D.C. headquarters; its 10 regional offices; and its Vehicle Research and Test Center. States develop a variety of plans as part of their overall transportation programs. Each state, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, is required by statute to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive statewide transportation planning process that requires periodic updates of plans. The statewide transportation planning process addresses both urbanized and nonmetropolitan areas of the state and includes both highway and transit needs. As part of the statewide planning process, states must develop a long-range statewide transportation plan and a state transportation improvement program (STIP). The long-range statewide transportation plan establishes a state’s strategic vision and direction for its transportation investments for at least a 20-year period. The STIP is the state program of transportation projects covering at least a 4-year period that are to be supported with federal surface transportation funds, as well as regionally significant projects requiring an action by FHWA or FTA, whether or not the projects are federally funded. At least every 4 years, state DOTs are required by statute to submit an updated STIP to FHWA and FTA for review and approval, in which the state certifies that the transportation planning process has been carried out in accordance with federal planning requirements. In urbanized areas, MPOs are also required to produce a long-range transportation plan, referred to as a metropolitan transportation plan, and a transportation improvement program (TIP). We have previously found that the cycle and frequency of updates of these plans vary across states and MPOs. In addition, each state is required to develop a strategic highway safety plan to, among other things, provide for performance management and identify strategies that cover all aspects of highway safety, which include (1) infrastructure improvements; (2) behavioral approaches, such as education and enforcement efforts meant to change drivers’ behavior; and (3) emergency medical services. Furthermore, each year each state is required to develop a highway safety plan, describing the state’s highway safety program and the activities they plan to undertake. According to NHTSA, states have voluntarily included measurable goals and objectives in their highway safety plans since 2010, enabling states to track the status of highway safety implementation efforts and monitor progress. Prior to enactment of MAP-21 in 2012, DOT’s surface transportation funding programs and statewide planning generally were not linked to performance-based outcomes, although some states used performance measures, most notably in the safety area. Historically, most federal surface transportation funds have been distributed through formulas that have only an indirect relationship to infrastructure needs, and many have no relationship to outcomes or grantees’ performance. FTA had incorporated performance-based principles into some of its formula grant programs to allocate funding. We previously found that about 5 percent of fiscal year 2010 funding for six formula grant programs we reviewed, on average, was required to be awarded based on transit agency performance. In a 2010 report, we noted that DOT’s oversight of the statewide planning process focused on state DOTs’ compliance with planning process requirements and did not consider transportation planning outcomes. At the state level, we found that states and MPOs have incorporated some performance measures and targets into their plans, though the use of measures and targets varied depending on the area. For example, we found nearly all state DOTs had safety performance measures and quantifiable targets related to these measures, due, in part, to the federal requirement that state DOTs develop a strategic highway safety plan that establishes statewide goals and objectives to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries. In other areas, such as measuring truck freight traffic, vehicle congestion, and emissions, we noted states generally did not incorporate performance measures into their plans. However, even in areas such as safety where states had used performance measures, we reported that only a few states made significant attempts to integrate performance measurement into their statewide planning process to inform investment decisions. Since 2008, we have recommended that Congress consider reexamining and refocusing surface transportation programs to include performance- based principles. In particular, we have noted that tracking specific outcomes that are clearly linked to program goals could provide a strong foundation for holding grant recipients responsible for achieving federal objectives and measuring overall program performance. Furthermore, we have previously found that data-driven decision-making leads to better results, and that if agencies do not use performance measures and performance information to track progress to track progress toward goals, they may be at risk of failing to achieve their goals. In addition, we found through our prior work that performance information can be used across a range of management functions to improve results, from setting program priorities and allocating resources to taking corrective action to solve program problems. MAP-21 included a number of statutory requirements related to transforming the surface transportation system to a performance-based approach, for the operating administrations, as well as for states and other grantees, in many cases holding grantees accountable for the first time. For instance, MAP-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures related to highway safety, asset condition, and highway system performance, among other things. In addition, states and other grantees are required to establish targets related to the performance measures established by DOT and to collect data, and track progress against those targets. States and other grantees are also required to report on progress toward achieving their targets. For example, beginning in 2016, states are required to report every 2 years to DOT on the progress they have made in achieving their FHWA targets. Further, in 2017, 5 years after the passage of MAP-21, DOT is required to report to Congress on progress made by states and other grantees in achieving their targets. In addition to establishing a performance-based approach for existing programs under NHTSA, FHWA, and FTA, MAP-21 expanded FTA’s safety oversight role and directed it to establish performance criteria for its new safety responsibilities, establish performance measures for state of good repair, develop a national transit safety plan, and develop requirements for local agency safety plans, among other things. To implement statutory requirements, such as those contained in MAP- 21, Congress has provided regulatory agencies, such as DOT, with the authority and responsibility for developing and issuing regulations. The basic process by which all federal agencies develop and issue regulations is spelled out in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This act establishes procedures and broadly applicable federal requirements for rulemaking, including informal rulemaking, also known as notice and comment rulemaking. (See fig .1) Among other things, the act generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. After giving interested persons an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule by providing “written data, views, or arguments,” the agency may then publish the final rule. In addition to the requirements under the act, proposed rules are often subject to internal and external deliberations and reviews, including official management approval within an agency, and to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Since MAP-21 was enacted in July 2012, DOT has conducted an extensive outreach effort to prepare states and grantees for a national performance-based approach to surface transportation. DOT worked closely with national transportation organizations and grantees to share information and collect input about the potential performance-based requirements. DOT has: Established a performance working group in August 2012, comprised of FHWA, FTA, and other DOT officials as well as representatives from nine national transportation organizations. According to DOT officials, the working group, which meets on a quarterly basis, has served as a forum for DOT to coordinate outreach efforts with national organizations, and also provided national organizations with a better understanding of the potential performance-based requirements and implementation schedule. Conducted webinars, organized regional workshops, and facilitated peer exchanges and national organization conferences to share information with grantees. For instance, FHWA and FTA sponsored a roundtable on MAP-21 during an Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) conference and also participated in Transportation Research Board annual meetings. Begun development of a technical assistance program and training curriculum on transportation performance management to assist grantees with the transition to a performance-based approach.