This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-217 
entitled 'Surface Transportation: DOT Is Progressing toward a 
Performance-Based Approach, but States and Grantees Report Potential 
Implementation Challenges' which was released on January 16, 2015. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Addressees: 

January 2015: 

Surface Transportation: 

DOT Is Progressing toward a Performance-Based Approach, but States and 
Grantees Report Potential Implementation Challenges: 

GAO-15-217: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-217, a report to Congressional Addressees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In fiscal year 2013, DOT provided about $50 billion to states and 
other grantees (such as metropolitan planning organizations and 
transit agencies) to support highway and transit infrastructure and 
safety. However, it is not clear if this funding has improved system 
performance because, in part, these programs have lacked links to 
performance and national goals. Since 2008, GAO has highlighted the 
need to link surface transportation programs to performance. MAP-21 
transformed surface transportation programs by including provisions 
for both DOT and its grantees to move toward a national performance-
based approach, in many cases holding grantees accountable for 
performance for the first time. This approach includes DOT 
establishing national performance measures, and states and other 
grantees setting targets related to these measures, and reporting 
progress. 

GAO examined (1) the progress that DOT has made in developing a 
national performance-based approach to surface transportation and (2) 
the challenges states and other grantees report facing in implementing 
this approach. GAO reviewed proposed rules and DOT information on 
rulemaking milestones and interviewed officials from DOT, national 
transportation organizations, and a non-generalizable sample of 29 
grantees in 13 states, selected on the basis of state population 
growth, performance management experience, and other factors. DOT 
reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments, which 
were incorporated as appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has made progress moving toward 
a national performance-based approach since the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was enacted in July 2012. 
DOT has undertaken extensive outreach efforts with states and other 
grantees and is developing nine rules that, among other things, are to 
establish national performance measures, and target-setting and 
reporting requirements for grantees. Five of the rules have been 
released for public comment, and none has been finalized. (See 
figure.) DOT has missed five of six deadlines established by MAP-21. 
However, given the extent to which MAP-21 transformed surface 
transportation programs and the length and complexity of the 
rulemaking process, these deadlines may have been ambitious. DOT's 
progress has also been affected by the varying experiences within its 
operating administrations in implementing a performance-based 
approach. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration has been implementing such an approach in its grant 
programs since 2008, while other DOT operating administrations started 
more recently. 

Figure: Timeline for Rulemakings Implementing MAP-21 Performance-Based 
Approach for Surface Transportation, December 2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Rule: Highway Safety Program Grants; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
December 2012; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: December 2012[January 2013;
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: January 2013; 
Comment period: January 2013-April 2013. 

Rule: Safety Performance Measure; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: June-
November 2013; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: November 2013-February 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: March 2014; 
Comment period: March-June 2014; 
Analyze comments and publish final rule: July 2014-September 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

Rule: Pavement and Bridge Performance Measure; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
January 2014-July 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: July 2014-November 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: November 2014; 
Comment period: November 2014-February 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

Rule: Asset Management Plan; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
January 2014-October 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: October 2014-January 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: January 2015; 
Comment period: January 2015-March 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

System Performance Measure; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
November-December 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: December 2014-March 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: March 2015; 
Comment period: March 2015-June 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

Rule: Highway Safety Improvement Program; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: July-
November 2013; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: November 2014-March 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: March 2014; 
Comment period: April-June 2014; 
Analyze comments and publish final rule: July 2014-July 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: October 
2013. 

Rule: Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: July 
2013-January 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: January 2014-May 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: May 2014; 
Comment period: June 2014-September 2014; 
Analyze comments and publish final rule: October 2014-September 2015. 

Rule: Transit Asset Management; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
February 2015; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: March 2015-June 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: June 2015; 
Comment period: June 2015-August 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing final rule: October 3013. 

Rule: Transit Agency Safety Plan; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: April-
May 2015; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: May 2015-August 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: August 2015; 
Comment period: September 2015-October 2015. 

Source: GAO analysis. GAO-15-217. 

Note: DOT has not yet established a timetable for finalizing some of 
these rules. In these cases, this figure does not display information 
on the estimated time to finalize the rule. 

[End of figure] 

States and other grantees reported potential data and cost challenges 
with implementing a national performance-based approach. According to 
some grantees and national organizations GAO contacted, data may not 
be available for measuring performance in some areas, such as 
congestion, and collecting data that are available may prove 
difficult. For example, DOT has proposed states collect traffic data 
on all public roads, and some state officials told GAO this step would 
be a substantial undertaking; New York officials told GAO that the 
state has adequate data for only about 37 percent of its public roads. 
Further, some grantees noted they may lack the staff or resources to 
analyze data, and some raised concerns that implementation costs may 
be substantial. DOT officials acknowledged these challenges and are 
working with grantees to help overcome obstacles. For example, DOT is 
working with states to share data, best practices, and templates for 
reporting. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-217]. For more 
information, contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 
flemings@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOT Has Made Progress in Moving toward a National Performance-Based 
System, but Multiple Factors Affect Progress: 

States and Other Grantees Reported Potential Data and Cost Challenges 
to Implementing DOT's Performance-Based Approach: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Department of Transportation Rulemakings for Selected MAP-
21 Performance Requirements: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Performance-Based Rules Planned by U.S. Department of 
Transportation in Response to Requirements in the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), as of January 5, 2015: 

Table 2: Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Proposed Rulemakings 
Incorporating Selected MAP-21 Performance Requirements: 

Table 3: Federal Transit Administration's Proposed and Planned Rules 
Incorporating Selected MAP-21 Performance Requirements: 

Table 4: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Proposed and 
Planned Rules Incorporating Selected MAP-21 Performance Requirements: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Basic Phases of the Federal Rulemaking Process: 

Figure 2: Timeline for Rulemakings Implementing MAP-21 Performance-
Based Approach to Surface Transportation, as of January 5, 2015: 

Figure 3: Relationships among DOT's Planned Rules Establishing a 
National Performance-Based Approach: 

Abbreviations: 

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials: 

ANPRM: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

AMPO: Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: 

APA: Administrative Procedures Act: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration: 

GHSA: Governors Highway Safety Association: 

MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: 

MPO: metropolitan planning organization: 

NARC: National Association of Regional Councils: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

STIP: state transportation improvement program: 

TIP: transportation improvement program: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 16, 2015: 

The Honorable Bill Shuster: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio: 
House of Representatives: 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) annually provides billions 
of dollars to states and other grantees to improve the nation's 
highway and transit infrastructure and safety. DOT provides federal 
funding to these grantees, including states, transit agencies, and 
metropolitan planning organizations[Footnote 1] (MPO), primarily 
through programs administered by three of its operating 
administrations: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which 
administers the federal-aid highway program that provides billions to 
states for highway and bridge projects; the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), which provides grant funding to support 
state highway safety programs; and the Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA), which administers a variety of grant programs that provide 
funding for the development and expansion of bus, rail and other 
transit projects, among other things. In fiscal year 2013, DOT 
provided approximately $50 billion to grantees for surface 
transportation projects through the programs administered by FHWA, 
FTA, and NHTSA. 

However, it is not clear whether the federal funding provided to 
states and other grantees through these surface transportation 
programs has improved the Nation's system performance because, among 
other things, these programs have lacked links to performance and 
national goals. Since 2008, we have highlighted the need to link 
surface transportation programs to performance and target surface 
transportation resources more effectively.[Footnote 2] 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 
program performance. Accordingly, we recommended that Congress 
consider reexamining and refocusing surface transportation programs 
to, among other things, make grantees more accountable through the use 
of more performance-based links between funding and program outcomes. 
Funding the nation's surface transportation system is on GAO's High 
Risk List.[Footnote 3] 

In July 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) that included provisions for 
both DOT and its grantees to move toward a national performance-based 
approach for surface transportation.[Footnote 4] Among other things, 
the act amended the United States Code to establish national surface 
transportation performance goals, and to provide a three-stage process 
for a national performance-based approach for surface transportation 
through which (1) DOT defines performance measures in support of the 
national goals and develops an approach for measuring grantee 
performance; (2) states and other grantees set and maintain targets 
based on the DOT-defined performance measures, collect data, and 
report to DOT their progress in meeting their targets; and (3) DOT 
evaluates grantee performance and reports to Congress on the extent to 
which grantees have met their targets. If progress toward meeting some 
targets is insufficient, states must report action they will undertake 
to achieve their targets. In addition, MAP-21 links funding to 
performance by requiring states to take corrective action if progress 
toward certain targets is insufficient, and to spend a specified 
portion of their annual federal funding to improve National Highway 
System[Footnote 5] bridges and Interstate-system pavement should 
conditions fall below minimum standards set by MAP-21 and the 
Secretary of Transportation, respectively.[Footnote 6] MAP-21 was 
originally enacted as a 2-year authorization for surface 
transportation programs through September 30, 2014. In August 2014, 
legislation was enacted that extended programs and funding authorized 
under MAP-21 until May 31, 2015.[Footnote 7] 

This report examines (1) the progress that DOT has made in developing 
a national performance-based approach to surface transportation and 
(2) the challenges states and other grantees report facing in 
implementing this approach. We prepared this report under the 
authority of the U.S. Comptroller General to conduct evaluations in 
light of broad congressional interest in this area and the 
relationship of this topic to our High-Risk area on funding the 
nation's surface transportation system. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed academic literature from 2011 
through 2014--representing the time period just before and since MAP-
21 was enacted--as well as our body of work on performance management 
in the federal government and transportation programs. To describe the 
progress that DOT has made in developing a national performance-based 
approach for surface transportation programs, we reviewed related 
requirements and timetables in MAP-21 for FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA as well 
as interim and proposed rulemakings developed by these operating 
administrations in response to these requirements.[Footnote 8] We did 
not evaluate the potential effectiveness of the proposed rules because 
the content may change before rules are finalized in response to 
comments submitted by grantees and other parties. We also analyzed DOT 
documents, guidance, and other information provided to grantees and 
analyzed DOT information on estimated and completed rulemaking 
milestones to understand the progress FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA have made 
developing the performance-based approach. We interviewed FHWA, FTA, 
and NHTSA officials to understand the factors affecting DOT's progress 
in developing the performance-based approach. 

To understand the challenges states and other grantees face in 
implementing a performance-based approach to surface transportation, 
we analyzed comments submitted to DOT by--and interviewed officials 
from--national transportation organizations and 29 grantees in 13 
states. The grantees comprised a sample of state transportation 
agencies, state highway safety offices, metropolitan and rural 
planning organizations, and transit agencies, selected to include 
grantees in states with varying population growth trends, population 
size, geographic location, transit infrastructure age, experiences 
managing and measuring transportation project performance, and 
incorporating recommendations from DOT and national transportation 
organizations. Based on these criteria, in four states, we interviewed 
officials from the state department of transportation, one or more 
metropolitan planning organizations, local transit providers, and DOT 
regional oversight offices;[Footnote 9] in the remaining nine states, 
we interviewed officials from at least one state transportation 
agency, planning organization or transit agency in that state. The 
information gathered from these 29 grantees cannot be generalized to 
all federal surface transportation grantees; however, they provided 
insight into the types of challenges that some grantees anticipate in 
implementing DOT's future rulemaking and overall performance based 
approach, as well as, perspectives on DOT's outreach and rulemaking 
progress. Additional information on our scope and methodology can be 
found in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2014 to January 2015 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. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 10] 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. 
[Footnote 11] 

* 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.[Footnote 12] 
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.[Footnote 13] 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.[Footnote 14] 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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 
16] 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.[Footnote 17] 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.[Footnote 18] 

Since 2008, we have recommended that Congress consider reexamining and 
refocusing surface transportation programs to include performance-
based principles.[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23] 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.[Footnote 24] 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).[Footnote 25] 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). 

Figure 1: Basic Phases of the Federal Rulemaking Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Initiate action: 

Identify source of rule initiation: 
* External; 
* Internal; 
* Statutory. 

Prioritization, planning and approval: 
* Manage, prioritize, plan, and approve rulemaking; 
* Determine anticipated issues; 
* Ensure stakeholder input; 
* Outline plan for development. 

Develop proposed action: 

Identify issues and gather data: 
* Determine process/work groups; 
* Determine needs analysis; 
* Optional agency procedures (e.g., advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking). 

Develop, preamble and rule language: 
* Statutory and executive order requirements; 
* Initial internal and external agency deliberation. 

Internal and external agency review: 
* Develop and select options; 
* Internal and external deliberation and approval processes, including 
review by Office of Management and Budget if a significant action. 

Publish proposed rule: 
* Sign and publish notice of proposed rule in Federal Register; 
* Stakeholder outreach. 

Develop final action: 

Receive and review comments: 
* Manage public comments on proposed rule; 
* Review and consider public comments. 

Finalize preamble and rule language: 
* Statutory and executive order requirements; 
* Optional agency procedures (e.g., supplemental proposal(. 

Internal and external agency review: 
* Internal and external deliberation and approval processes, including 
review by Office of Management and Budget if a significant action. 

Publish final rule: 
* Publish final rule in Federal Register; 
* Stakeholder outreach. 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-217. 

Note: The initiation of the federal rulemaking process does not always 
result in the publication of a final rule. For example, in some 
instances, agencies may develop a proposed rule, but decide to 
withdraw the rule later in the rulemaking process. 

[End of figure] 

DOT Has Made Progress in Moving toward a National Performance-Based 
System, but Multiple Factors Affect Progress: 

DOT Has Made Extensive Outreach Efforts to Communicate with States and 
Other Grantees: 

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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] 

* 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. For example, 
according to FHWA officials, FHWA has begun developing a technical 
assistance program that will include resources such as the development 
of guidebooks and evaluation tools, and identification of best 
practices. Once FHWA finalizes the rulemakings, FHWA will provide on-
site assistance to its grantees through the technical assistance 
program. Additionally, FHWA has begun developing a training curriculum 
for states and MPOs that will be available once the performance-based 
approach is formally established, according to FHWA officials. FHWA 
also conducted a national assessment of state readiness to help inform 
its technical assistance program and training curriculum. 

* Established guidance to help communicate how certain MAP-21 
performance requirements will be implemented. FHWA and FTA, for 
instance, jointly issued policy guidance[Footnote 28] to clarify the 
requirement that public transportation providers must be represented 
on the board of MPOs that serve as transportation management areas. 
[Footnote 29] 

* Sought formal public input on potential approaches for implementing 
the MAP-21 requirements. For example, FTA issued an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), for its rules related to transit safety 
plans and transit asset management to solicit feedback and obtain 
input from grantees on the content of potential performance-based 
approaches to transit. 

A majority of grantee officials we spoke to stated that DOT's outreach 
efforts have helped them understand the potential requirements and 
mechanics of implementing a national performance-based system. For 
example, officials from the New York State Association of Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations noted that DOT officials have provided helpful 
and extensive information, including responses to frequently asked 
questions on the FHWA website to help support the development of the 
performance-based approach and keep grantees informed. Similarly, 
officials from Washington state noted that as a result of DOT's 
outreach efforts, the rules that have been released for public comment 
have contained few unanticipated requirements. 

Rules to Guide the Performance-Based Approach Are under Development: 

DOT is formally establishing requirements for states and other 
grantees to implement the performance-based approach envisioned by MAP-
21 through the rulemaking process. (See table 1.) Specifically, DOT 
plans to establish performance measures, as well as target-setting and 
reporting requirements for grantees for a range of transportation 
activities. In some cases, MAP-21 required DOT to use the rulemaking 
process to implement performance-based requirements and established 
certain deadlines; however, in other cases, MAP-21 did not establish 
deadlines for implementing performance-based requirements. For 
example, while MAP-21 required FTA to issue a rule for target-setting 
and reporting requirements in transit agency safety plans, it did not 
establish a deadline for the issuance of a final rule. In addition, 
DOT officials stated that they may provide additional guidance to 
states and other grantees outside of the rulemaking process. For 
example, FTA officials stated that FTA plans to establish a National 
Transit Safety plan and establish minimum safety performance criteria 
for transit agencies as required by MAP-21, through a policy document, 
rather than through the formal rulemaking process.[Footnote 30] 

Table 1: Performance-Based Rules Planned by U.S. Department of 
Transportation in Response to Requirements in the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), as of January 5, 2015: 

Planned rule: Safety Performance Measure; 
Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); 
Description: Proposes and defines fatality and serious injury 
measures, along with target-setting, progress assessment, and 
reporting requirements; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: Issue proposed rule-making by 
April 1, 2014. 

Planned rule: Pavement and Bridge Performance Measure; 
Agency: FHWA; 
Description: Proposes and defines pavement and bridge condition 
measures, along with target-setting, progress assessment, and reporting 
requirements; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: Issue proposed rule-making by 
April 1, 2014. 

Planned rule: Asset Management Plan; 
Agency: FHWA; 
Description: Describes integration of pavement and bridge condition 
measures and other content required for asset management plans, and 
sets minimum standards for pavement and bridge management systems; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: Issue proposed rule-making by 
April 1, 2014. 

Planned rule: System Performance Measure; 
Agency: FHWA; 
Description: Proposes and defines measures for the performance of the 
Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System, traffic 
congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, and freight movement on 
the Interstate; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: Issue proposed rule-making by 
April 1, 2014. 

Planned rule: Highway Safety Improvement Program; 
Agency: FHWA; 
Description: Integrates safety performance measures into highway safety 
improvement program, establishes strategic highway safety plan update 
cycle, and updates annual reporting requirements; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: Issue proposed rulemaking by 
October 1, 2013. 

Planned rule: Statewide, Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Planning; 
Agency: FHWA/Federal Transit Administration (FTA); 
Description: Establishes performance-based planning process at MPO and 
state level, establishes metropolitan reporting requirements, and 
defines coordination of target setting; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: None. 

Planned rule: Transit Asset Management; 
Agency: FTA; 
Description: Defines state of good repair performance measures, and 
establishes requirements for transit asset management plan target 
setting and reporting; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: Issue Final Rule by October 1, 
2013. 

Planned rule: Transit Agency Safety Plan; 
Agency: FTA; 
Description: Defines transit agency safety plan content and target 
setting requirements; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: None. 

Planned rule: Highway Safety Program Grants; 
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 
Description: Defines highway safety performance measures, target 
setting, and highway safety plan content; 
MAP-21 Rulemaking deadline, if any: None[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data. GAO-15-217. 

[A] To provide sufficient notice to states regarding grant application 
requirements for the FY 2013 and FY 2014 grant cycle, NHTSA issued an 
interim final rule on January 23, 2013. 78 Fed. Reg. 4986. 

[End of table] 

DOT's operating administrations have made varying degrees of progress 
developing their associated performance rules. (See fig. 2.) As of 
January 5, 2015, five out of nine rules have been available for public 
comment, and the remaining four rules are still under development. 

* NHTSA issued an interim final rule for public comment in January 
2013 but has not established a timeline for issuing a final rule. 
According to NHTSA officials, the agency is awaiting enactment of a 
new surface transportation reauthorization act before deciding on a 
timeframe since the timing and content of such a statute could require 
NHTSA to revise its interim rule. 

* FHWA has released three of its five proposed rules for public 
comment. FHWA released two proposed rules on safety for public comment 
in March 2014 and is currently evaluating the comments it received. 
[Footnote 31] In addition, on January 5, 2015, FHWA released a notice 
of proposed rulemaking on pavement and bridge performance measures for 
public comment.[Footnote 32] FHWA plans to release its remaining two 
rules for public comment by April 2015. 

* FTA's planned rules related to transit asset management and transit 
agency safety plans remain under development. FTA has not released 
either of its rules for public comment, although FTA did issue an 
ANPRM to solicit public input about the contents of its proposed 
rules. FTA officials said it plans to release proposed rules for 
transit asset management for public comment in June 2015, and a 
proposed rule for transit agency safety plans in August 2015. 

* FTA and FHWA have jointly released for public comment a notice of 
proposed rulemaking related to performance-based metropolitan and 
statewide planning.[Footnote 33] The public comment period for this 
proposed rule closed in October 2014, and FHWA and FTA are currently 
evaluating the comments received on this proposed rule. 

Figure 2: Timeline for Rulemakings Implementing MAP-21 Performance-
Based Approach to Surface Transportation, as of January 5, 2015: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Rule: Highway Safety Program Grants (NTSA)[A]; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
December 2012; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: December 2012[January 2013;
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: January 2013; 
Comment period: January 2013-April 2013. 

Rule: Safety Performance Measure (FWHA)[B]; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: June-
November 2013; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: November 2013-February 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: March 2014; 
Comment period: March-June 2014; 
Analyze comments and publish final rule: July 2014-September 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

Rule: Pavement and Bridge Performance Measure (FWHA); 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
January 2014-July 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: July 2014-November 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: November 2014; 
Comment period: November 2014-February 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

Rule: Asset Management Plan (FWHA); 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
January 2014-October 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: October 2014-January 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: January 2015; 
Comment period: January 2015-March 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

System Performance Measure (FWHA); 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
November-December 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: December 2014-March 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: March 2015; 
Comment period: March 2015-June 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: April 
2014. 

Rule: Highway Safety Improvement Program (FWHA); 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: July-
November 2013; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: November 2014-March 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: March 2014; 
Comment period: April-June 2014; 
Analyze comments and publish final rule: July 2014-July 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: October 
2013. 

Rule: Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning 
(FWHA/FTA); 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: July 
2013-January 2014; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: January 2014-May 2014; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: May 2014; 
Comment period: June 2014-September 2014; 
Analyze comments and publish final rule: October 2014-September 2015. 

Rule: Transit Asset Management (FTA)[C]; 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: 
February 2015; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: March 2015-June 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: June 2015; 
Comment period: June 2015-August 2015; 
Statutory deadline for issuing final rule: October 3013. 

Rule: Transit Agency Safety Plan (FTA); 
Department of Transportation review by Office of the Secretary: April-
May 2015; 
Review by Office of Management and Budget: May 2015-August 2015; 
Revise proposed rule and publish for comment: August 2015; 
Comment period: September 2015-October 2015. 

Source: GAO analysis. GAO-15-217. 

[A] NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

[B] FHWA = Federal Highway Administration. 

[C] FTA = Federal Transit Administration. 

Note: DOT has not yet established a timetable for finalizing some of 
these rules. In these cases, this chart does not include the time 
estimated to finalize the rule. 

[End of figure] 

In developing these rules, DOT has missed five out of six performance-
related rulemaking deadlines established in MAP-21. However, DOT 
officials declined to provide specific dates for when some of the 
rules will be finalized. FHWA plans to finalize the two safety rules 
and the metropolitan and statewide planning rule developed with FTA by 
September 2015.[Footnote 34] However, FHWA has not established when 
its remaining rules would be finalized. FTA officials stated that it 
has not determined when its two rules would be finalized. FHWA and FTA 
officials we spoke with stated they could not provide a more specific 
date when the rulemaking process would be completed for the rules that 
have not yet been released for comment, noting the challenges of 
predicting the effect of the public comments submitted in response to 
its proposed rulemaking. As part of finalizing the rules, DOT plans to 
establish specific deadlines for grantees' implementation of the MAP-
21 performance target-setting and reporting requirements. NHTSA is 
awaiting enactment of a new surface transportation reauthorization to 
see if it includes any additional requirements pertaining to its 
grants programs before deciding on a timeframe. 

Multiple Factors Affect DOT's Progress in Developing a National 
Performance-Based Approach: 

DOT's progress in developing a national performance-based approach has 
been affected by the extent to which MAP-21 transformed surface 
transportation programs, the length and complexity of the rulemaking 
process, and DOT's varying levels of experience implementing a 
performance-based approach. 

* MAP-21 began the transformation of the nature and structure of 
surface transportation programs by establishing a comprehensive 
performance-based approach for NHTSA, FHWA, and FTA, in many cases, 
holding states and other grantees accountable for performance for the 
first time. 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. In general, funds have been 
distributed without regard to performance, and therefore, it has been 
difficult to determine whether federal spending has improved the 
performance of the nation's surface transportation infrastructure. As 
part of this transformational effort to shift from a process-based 
approach to a performance-based approach, MAP-21 required DOT to 
establish national performance measures that will be used by states 
and other grantees to set targets and report on progress in meeting 
those targets. However, state and grantee officials told us that in 
some instances, there is no broad consensus among DOT, states, MPOs, 
and transit grantees on how to implement a performance-based approach. 
While some states and grantees have been measuring performance for 
years, state and grantee officials we spoke with told us that their 
approaches have been tailored to their state and local interests and 
priorities, as opposed to national goals. 

In addition to moving toward a performance-based approach to surface 
transportation, MAP-21 created a number of new responsibilities for 
DOT. For example, every four years, DOT is required to review and 
certify the process used by each state to develop its asset management 
plan, which identifies strategies that help the state make progress 
toward its targets for asset condition, among other things. In 
addition, FHWA and NHTSA are responsible for evaluating and approving 
the process by which initial targets will be set by states in their 
state highway safety plans. FTA has additional responsibilities for 
overseeing the safety of the nation's transit system. As part of these 
responsibilities, FTA plans to develop an oversight approach 
concurrently with the development of performance measures to evaluate 
federal transit safety. While FTA does not have a formal role in 
evaluating targets related to the MAP-21 performance measures, 
grantees must report to FTA on their progress meeting targets, and 
identify the following year's targets. 

* The rulemaking process is lengthy and complex. Given the length of 
time a rule typically requires to be developed under the APA and 
extent to which MAP-21 transformed surface transportation programs, 
the rulemaking deadlines established by MAP-21 may have been 
ambitious. In our prior work, we found that rulemakings can range from 
1 to nearly 14 years to complete, depending on a number of factors. 
More specifically, we found that a rulemaking takes an average of four 
years to complete, based on a sample of 16 rulemakings from four 
federal agencies, including DOT.[Footnote 35] Within this sample, 
these four federal agencies took an average of about 2 ½ years to 
develop and issue a proposed rule. In contrast, the timeline for MAP-
21 generally gave DOT approximately 1 to 1 ½ years to develop and 
issue some of the proposed rules. 

The number and extent of comments received may affect the duration and 
complexity of the rulemaking process. Specifically, agencies are 
required to respond to comments that have been received in response to 
a notice of proposed rulemaking.[Footnote 36] We have previously found 
that when agencies did respond to public comments, they often made 
changes to the rules.[Footnote 37] FHWA officials stated that they 
received a substantial number of comments on their safety performance 
measures rule, and it will take time to address these comments and 
revise the rule if necessary. Similarly, FTA officials stated that 
they received over 2500 pages of comments on FTA's ANPRM, and are 
reviewing and using the comments to develop FTA's transit safety and 
asset management plan rules. In addition, after public release of four 
of the five proposed rules published thus far, DOT extended the public 
comment period, which may delay the remaining milestones in the 
rulemaking process up through the publication of the final rule. 

Furthermore, DOT's rules are interrelated, so delays in establishing 
performance measures may cause delays in completing the process for 
moving to a performance-based approach. Until DOT finalizes the 
performance measures required by MAP-21, states and grantees will be 
unable to establish targets and report on progress made in relation to 
those performance measures. For example, three FHWA rules develop 
performance measures, which directly affect state target-setting and 
reporting requirements for grantees. (See fig. 3.) Delays in 
establishing performance measures may also affect information on 
grantee progress reported to Congress. For example, in MAP-21, 
Congress directed states to report biennially to DOT, beginning in 
October 2016, on the progress made in achieving the targets set under 
DOT's performance-based approach.[Footnote 38] MAP-21 also directed 
DOT to report to Congress in October 2017 on the progress states and 
MPOs have made in achieving their targets. However, DOT officials 
acknowledged that the reports due to Congress in October 2017 may 
contain limited information depending on the effective dates of the 
MAP-21 performance requirements. 

Figure 3: Relationships among DOT's Planned Rules Establishing a 
National Performance-Based Approach: 

[Refer to PDF for image: relationship chart] 

FHWA[B] Highway Safety Improvement Program Rule; 
Proposed rule establishes: Reporting requirements; 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: FHWA/FTA Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan
Planning Rule. 

FHWA Asset Management Plan Rule: 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: FHWA/FTA Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan
Planning Rule. 

NHTSA[A] Highway Safety Program Grants Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Performance measures; Target setting 
requirements; Reporting requirements; 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: FHWA Safety Performance Measure Rule. 

FHWA Safety Performance Measure Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Performance measures; Target setting 
requirements; Reporting requirements; 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: NHTSA[A] Highway Safety Program Grants Rule and 
FHWA/FTA Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning Rule. 

FHWA System Performance Measure Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Performance measures; Target setting 
requirements; Reporting requirements; 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: FHWA Bridge and Pavement Performance Measure Rule and 
FHWA/FTA Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning Rule. 

FHWA Bridge and Pavement Performance Measure Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Performance measures; Target setting 
requirements; Reporting requirements; 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: FHWA System Performance Measure Rule and FHWA/FTA 
Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning Rule. 

FTA Transit Asset Management Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Performance measures; Target setting 
requirements; Reporting requirements; 
Performance measures inform target setting and reporting requirements 
in other rules: FTA[C] Transit Agency Safety Plan Rule and FHWA/FTA 
Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning Rule. 

FTA[C] Transit Agency Safety Plan Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Target setting requirements; Reporting 
requirements. 

FHWA/FTA Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan Planning Rule: 
Proposed rule establishes: Target setting requirements; Reporting 
requirements. 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-217. 

[A] NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

[B] FHWA = Federal Highway Administration. 

[C] FTA = Federal Transit Administration. 

[End of figure] 

* There are varying levels of experience with performance measurement 
across DOT's operating administrations. For example, NHTSA has been 
collaborating with grantees and the Governors Highway Safety 
Association (GHSA) to develop performance measures in its highway 
safety grant programs since 2008.[Footnote 39] According to NHTSA 
officials, in 2010, states voluntarily began reporting performance 
measures, targets, and progress meeting these targets in their highway 
safety plans. NHTSA uses these measures as a basis for reporting to 
Congress about highway safety. In contrast, FHWA and FTA have had more 
limited experience in applying a performance-based approach to its 
grant programs. For example, federal-aid highway program funding has 
historically been distributed through a complicated process based on 
statutory formulas. Prior to MAP-21, 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 
awarded based on transit agency performance.[Footnote 40] We found 
that, after these grants were awarded, FTA was required to collect 
performance data, but FTA typically did not use the performance data 
to evaluate the effectiveness of its formula grant programs.[Footnote 
41] 

Notwithstanding the factors affecting DOT's effort to implement the 
performance-based approach, most states and grantees we spoke with 
continue to take steps to implement performance-based principles into 
their transportation programs, though some of these grantees are 
awaiting further guidance from DOT. Notably, in 2014, FHWA, through 
its division offices, made an assessment of states' readiness to 
implement MAP-21 requirements and, in a draft summary report, stated 
that most states are actively involved and taking steps to prepare for 
MAP-21 implementation. State DOTs have also worked with national 
transportation organizations to develop criteria and broad guidelines 
for performance measures and to evaluate how they can be applied by 
members at the state or local levels. For example, officials from the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) and state DOTs have been active in the development and 
deployment of transportation performance management 
guidelines.[Footnote 42] This resulted in six overarching principles 
on how national-level performance measures should be developed and 
implemented, which guided AASHTO recommendations on these topics that 
were submitted to FHWA in November 2012.[Footnote 43] However, a few 
of the grantees we spoke with stated that they are waiting for final 
rulemakings and rollout of national performance measures prior to 
implementing a performance-based approach. These officials noted that 
due to the uncertainty about the content of the transit-related rules, 
they are prioritizing local requirements over the potential MAP-21 
requirements. 

States and Other Grantees Reported Potential Data and Cost Challenges 
to Implementing DOT's Performance-Based Approach: 

Officials from states and other grantee agencies and representatives 
from national organizations we interviewed reported a variety of 
challenges to implementing a performance-based approach, of which data 
and cost challenges were most frequently cited.[Footnote 44] 
Specifically, officials and representatives indicated data 
availability, collection, and analysis would be significant challenges 
for their agencies. Officials and representatives also frequently 
cited implementation costs, some associated with addressing the data 
challenges, although they acknowledged that they had not or could not 
estimate the financial impact because DOT's rulemakings have not been 
finalized. 

States and Other Grantees Reported Potential Data Availability, 
Collection and Analysis Challenges: 

Officials and representatives we interviewed anticipated facing 
challenges related to the need for data, including their availability, 
collection and analysis. We have previously found that implementing a 
performance accountability framework necessitates agencies having to 
collect and analyze data that are useful and relevant.[Footnote 45] In 
describing these challenges, state and other grantee officials we 
interviewed acknowledged that since DOT's rulemakings had not been 
finalized yet, it was unclear the extent to which DOT's requirements 
may exceed their current data and performance-based efforts. 

Representatives from 5 national organizations and officials from 18 
state and other grantee agencies we interviewed noted that data may 
not be available to measure progress, in part because there is a lack 
of consensus on what or how to measure certain performance areas. For 
example, state and grantee officials told us they were concerned that 
data may not be available to measure congestion, in part, because 
there is a lack of consensus among states and grantees regarding how 
to measure it. In the absence of consensus, states and other grantees 
have used a variety of metrics to measure congestion, which could 
complicate the development of national congestion measures. 
Furthermore, while there has been a heightened importance placed on 
congestion data in rural areas due to the MAP-21 requirements and the 
increased freight traffic in rural areas resulting from oil and gas 
development, most congestion data have been historically focused on 
urban areas. Accordingly, a number of grantees we spoke with told us 
that available data sets may not reflect congestion in rural areas. In 
addition, some safety data may not be available. For example, while a 
national database for transportation fatalities exists[Footnote 46], 
no national data source currently exists for serious injuries. 
Although NHTSA and GHSA developed and issued guidelines for defining 
serious injuries in 2012, states currently define and collect crash 
data differently which makes it hard to aggregate data. For example, 
Florida DOT officials told us their definition of a serious injury 
varied from other states, making their data inconsistent with other 
states'. In its proposed rulemaking on safety performance measures, 
FHWA acknowledged the need for a consistent definition of serious 
injuries, and proposed steps--including a system for classifying 
serious injuries--to address this challenge.[Footnote 47] 

Data collection also poses a challenge for states and grantees. 
Officials from 19 states and other grantees, and representatives from 
6 of the national organizations we interviewed reported the following 
types of potential challenges associated with the data collection: 

* States may have to collect additional data. For example, MAP-21 
expanded the definition of the National Highway System, adding 50,000 
miles including many roads owned and operated by local agencies; 
officials from some states noted that they have not previously 
collected data on these roads. In addition, FHWA has proposed that 
states collect data on the average annual daily traffic on all public 
roads. According to some state officials we spoke with, however, this 
would be a substantial undertaking. For example, New York DOT 
officials told us the state currently has adequate data for only about 
37 percent of its public roads. Officials from some state DOTs also 
stated that they may have to collect additional data on local roads, 
based on their review of the requirements in FHWA's proposed 
rulemaking on the Highway Safety Improvement Program. For example, 
officials from the Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming 
DOTs stated the requirements in FHWA's proposed rulemakings may 
require the collection of additional data on low-volume roads, such as 
all gravel and other unpaved roads in their states. 

* Collecting and standardizing performance data may require additional 
collaboration among state and local transportation providers. For 
example, as part of standardizing the approach to collecting data, 
grantee officials from Michigan reported that it would be difficult to 
obtain consistent data from rural bus agencies on the condition of 
their assets.[Footnote 48] Similarly, officials from one Florida MPO 
anticipated challenges in obtaining data from transit providers since 
the MPO has limited means for ensuring transit agencies collect and 
report data to them. These officials stated they are working with 
these transit operators to improve cooperation. Also, in order to 
standardize their approach to collecting data, grantees stated that 
they may need to revise their collection protocols. However, officials 
from some states suggested that this could pose a significant 
challenge because such protocols necessarily involve new training for 
agencies, such as police departments, to ensure that data is collected 
uniformly or could involve establishing or revising some thresholds. 

* Some performance data may be proprietary and expensive to obtain 
from private transportation providers. We previously found that state 
and local officials had limited data to quantify rail-related freight 
impacts (such as traffic delay times or costs) on local communities. 
[Footnote 49] State and grantee officials we interviewed suggested 
that they may need to obtain data from private sources, which in some 
cases may prove challenging. For example, according to MPO officials 
in Florida, freight data necessary to measure congestion (specifically 
on the volume of rail transport through local areas) are proprietary, 
and it may be difficult or expensive to access this data set from 
operators.[Footnote 50] Similarly, officials from the New York State 
Association of MPOs also raised challenges about collecting 
performance data on freight, because of their expense and propriety 
nature. We have previously found that private railroads are often 
unwilling to provide detailed information on train counts, lengths, 
speed, and times to local communities to help them quantify traffic 
impacts at highway-grade rail crossings.[Footnote 51] 

Moreover, representatives from four national transportation 
organizations and officials from 10 states and other grantees we 
interviewed stated that even when data can be collected, current 
staffing levels, areas of expertise and data systems may not support 
the analyses that may be required. For example, representatives from 
the National Association for Regional Councils (NARC) told us that 
ensuring MPOs have sufficient staff capable of monitoring program 
performance would be a challenge. [Footnote 52] We previously found 
that some MPOs have limited expertise or staff to analyze performance 
data.[Footnote 53] Furthermore, during the course of our current 
review, officials from several MPOs told us that they rely heavily on 
their state DOTs to analyze data. Additionally, some state officials 
noted that their data systems may not be set up to report or break out 
analyses according to DOT's anticipated requirements. For example, 
South Carolina officials stated that, to conduct the analysis 
potentially required by DOT's rulemaking, they may need to revise 
their existing legacy database systems or invest in a new database 
system. FHWA officials have acknowledged that the data analysis 
capabilities of some states and grantees are limited, noting in FHWA's 
assessment of state readiness that 35 states may face data integration 
challenges and that 28 states may face data processing challenges. 

While several state and other grant recipient officials we spoke with 
reported anticipating few or no data-related challenges, many of these 
officials raised concerns about how data and performance measurement 
would be ultimately used by DOT. Some state officials expressed 
concern that DOT's approach will direct states to develop targets 
based on outdated national data, as opposed to more current data 
available to the states. For example, NHTSA requires that states 
develop targets for highway safety based on data collected and 
submitted into FARS. However, the lag between when these data are 
collected and submitted by states and finalized by NHTSA is 
approximately 24 months. As a result, officials from several states, 
as well as AASHTO and GHSA representatives, expressed concern that 
states may be required to set targets based on outdated FARS data, 
rather than focus on setting targets based on the more current data 
collected by states, and that DOT would be using outdated data to 
determine whether states are making significant progress in meeting 
their targets. Officials and representatives also questioned if 
performance measurement should or would be tied to DOT's funding 
decisions, which some of them opposed, because they reported that it 
would be difficult to compare the transportation and transit 
priorities and operating environments of different states and transit 
agencies. Officials from several states further underscored to us that 
performance was a function of available funding and investments, which 
has not kept pace with the level of deteriorating infrastructure. 
Moreover, officials from some states and other grantees raised 
concerns that DOT's requirements might impede or hinder their 
approaches that have evolved over time to meet state and local needs. 
For example, Washington state officials anticipated that many of their 
existing performance management programs may be broader in scope than 
MAP-21 performance measures and provide more detailed information 
necessary to support state investment decision processes. The 
officials noted that the effort required to comply with the DOT 
national performance requirements in MAP-21 may affect the state's 
ability to support its own state performance measurement and 
investment decision process. These officials reported being concerned 
with how DOT will integrate legacy performance programs in states like 
Washington into the new framework. 

DOT officials acknowledged that states and grantees will face some 
data challenges as part of the transition to the performance-based 
approach, though DOT officials noted they have taken some steps to 
anticipate these challenges. For example, DOT has encouraged and 
worked with states to share data, best practices, and templates for 
reporting. In addition, DOT officials stated that their overall 
approach has emphasized the use of existing data sets and plans to 
further detail its approach to ensuring data availability through its 
upcoming rulemakings. In addition, FHWA has used information gathered 
through its assessment of state readiness to help inform its technical 
assistance program, which DOT anticipates will address some of the 
above mentioned challenges. 

Implementation Costs Could Vary and Be a Significant Challenge for 
Some States and Grantees: 

Representatives from 5 national organizations and officials from 22 of 
the 29 states and other grantees we spoke to reported potential 
challenges with the costs of implementing a national performance 
measurement system. According to FHWA officials, the total 
implementation costs of any one of its proposed rulemakings to states 
and grantees in any one year will not exceed $100 million for any one 
rule. For example, in March 2014, FHWA estimated the 10-year costs 
[Footnote 54] associated with the eight new requirements proposed in 
its Safety Performance Measure rulemaking (see table 1) were 
approximately $67 million.[Footnote 55] About $26 million of this is 
estimated to be one-time costs incurred by state DOTs and MPOs to 
standardize and update data collection and reporting systems, as well 
as the increase in level of effort from labor to establish and report 
targets. In calculating this cost, DOT assumed that a portion of MPOs, 
approximately half, would establish their own targets and that a 
portion would adopt state DOT targets. FHWA acknowledged that larger 
MPOs may have more resources available to develop performance targets 
and that it believed smaller MPOs (those with populations under 
200,000) would have no incremental costs as they would adopt state-
established targets. DOT's estimates for other rulemakings reflect the 
associated costs of activities (e.g., planning and data collection) 
beyond what is currently performed by states, MPOs, and providers of 
public transportation. 

On a per-state or agency basis, the cost of implementation may vary 
depending on the characteristics of each grantee, and some states 
reported that these costs may exceed the average cost estimated by 
DOT. One MPO official reported that her organization believed DOT's 
estimate that the cost of administering oversight of transportation 
planning would increase no more than 15 percent was low. According to 
officials from some of the national organizations and officials from 
about one-third of states and grantees we interviewed, implementation 
costs to hire additional staff or allow for staff time and travel may 
be burdensome, particularly for smaller or more rural states and 
grantees. Officials from the New York State Association of MPOs 
explained that hiring and training new staff to collect and analyze 
performance data would require additional funding and that smaller 
MPOs would be more acutely affected than the larger MPOs, particularly 
those that do not currently conduct sophisticated analysis with the 
performance data. One rural transit provider we interviewed also 
relayed concerns about having to potentially hire an additional staff 
person to serve as a chief safety officer in order to meet this 
requirement being considered by FTA.[Footnote 56] Officials from some 
planning organizations we interviewed underscored their lack of 
planning professionals and how the few individuals employed by their 
agencies were already responsible for fulfilling multiple roles. 

Implementation costs may also vary by grantees' experience in 
different surface transportation areas. In summer 2014, FHWA queried 
its division offices about the readiness of states to implement 
performance-based approaches to transportation projects in their 
states. According to the division offices, in the areas of congestion, 
air quality and freight, only 20 to 40 percent of states had adopted 
performance management practices, and only about 10 to 20 percent of 
states are very highly prepared to carry out performance-based 
programs in these areas. For example, in Nevada, FHWA officials 
reported that state officials may need some additional assistance to 
integrate data and develop metrics for congestion, freight, and air 
quality. On the other hand, state DOTs and other grantees may be 
better positioned to meet DOT's performance measurement requirements 
in other areas, such as safety, pavement, and bridge condition. 
According to FHWA's assessment, about 40 to 50 percent of the states 
are ready to carry out a performance-based program in some areas, such 
as safety, pavement, and bridge condition, where, historically, 
measures and targets have been used by states to evaluate program 
performance. According to the division offices, in these areas about 
60 to 70 percent of the states integrate performance into their long-
range plans, develop quantifiable targets to guide investment decision 
making, and develop plans that document their strategies to achieve 
targets. 

According to AASHTO, some of its members have concerns that collecting 
data to support these rules may reduce the portion of their federal 
highway grants available to fund transportation projects over the long 
term. While these costs are eligible for federal planning funds, 
officials from several grantee agencies said they do not expect 
additional federal funding for implementation. Representatives from 
several national organizations and officials from some states and 
other grantees we interviewed emphasized that DOT should, whenever 
possible, leverage existing resources or data or procure data sources 
itself. Representatives from the American Public Transportation 
Association suggested that DOT consider the data that it will be 
asking transit agencies to collect, pointing to recent FTA-sponsored 
asset management pilot projects that demonstrated the data collection 
process can be burdensome and should be based on the types of 
information that states and local transit agencies currently collect. 
[Footnote 57] Similarly, representatives from the National Association 
of Development Organizations also underscored the cost of acquiring 
and analyzing data and the need to structure data collection around 
existing sources. DOT officials agreed that data availability, 
collection, analysis and associated costs present potential 
challenges, and stated that in order to address this situation, DOT 
has emphasized the use of existing data sets and intends to further 
detail its approach to ensuring data availability through its upcoming 
rulemakings. 

Concluding Observations: 

DOT's effort to develop a performance-based approach for its various 
surface transportation grant recipients represents a significant shift 
for the Department, transforming the federal involvement in surface 
transportation to a more outcome-oriented approach, as we have 
recommended since 2008. In many cases, the shift to a performance-
based approach will hold states and other grantees accountable for 
performance for the first time. Such an approach could provide a 
strong foundation for holding grant recipients responsible for 
achieving federal objectives and measuring overall program 
performance. However, the development and implementation of a 
performance-based approach is not without challenges. Notably, as 
NHTSA's implementation of a performance-based approach has 
demonstrated, this broader effort of incorporating performance-based 
principles into the overall surface transportation program may take 
longer than Congress originally anticipated. In addition, while many 
grantees have been evaluating the performance of transportation 
projects for many years, experiences with performance measurement 
varies and even the most experienced grantees may face challenges 
aligning their individual approaches with DOT's national approach. 
Nevertheless, given the billions of dollars provided annually in 
federal funding to improve the nation's highway and transit 
infrastructure and safety--and competing demands for that funding--the 
ability to assess the outcomes of federal surface transportation 
programs and hold grant recipients accountable for results could help 
all parties more efficiently allocate federal funds to address 
specific challenges and areas of concern. 

Agency Comments: 

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 interested congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this 
report will be: 

available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, 
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 III. 

Signed by: 

Susan Fleming: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to determine: (1) the progress that 
DOT has made in developing a national performance-based approach to 
surface transportation and (2) the challenges states and other 
grantees report facing in implementing this approach. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed scholarly/peer-reviewed, 
government, trade, and non-profit literature from 2011 through 2014, 
the time period just before and since MAP-21 was enacted. The reviewed 
literature included those published by the National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program, which is sponsored by FHWA and American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and 
presented at the Transportation Research Board annual conference. The 
literature examined local and national transportation performance 
based approaches. We also reviewed DOT-conducted performance 
management case studies and workshop summaries and reports that were 
publicly available, as well as, our body of work on performance 
management in the federal government and transportation programs. 

To examine the progress that DOT has made in developing a national 
performance-based approach for surface transportation programs, we 
reviewed related requirements and timetables in MAP-21 for FHWA, FTA, 
and NHTSA as well as interim and proposed rulemakings developed by 
these operating administrations in response to these requirements. 
[Footnote 58] We did not evaluate the potential effectiveness of the 
proposed rules because the content may change before rules are 
finalized in response to comments submitted by grantees and other 
parties. We also analyzed DOT documents, information obtained through 
interviews with DOT officials, guidance issued through the rulemaking 
process, and information from grantee interviews. We also analyzed 
information from the Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings, issued 
monthly, which provides the original, actual, and projected dates for 
the major milestones in the rulemaking process to understand the 
progress FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA have made developing the performance-
based approach. In the event that actual dates were unavailable, 
projected dates, obtained directly from the Report on DOT Significant 
Rulemakings were used to calculate the length of milestones. We 
interviewed FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA officials to understand the factors 
affecting DOT's progress in developing the performance-based approach. 

To understand the challenges states and other grantees face in 
implementing a performance-based approach to surface transportation, 
we analyzed comments submitted to DOT by and interviewed 
representatives from seven national transportation organizations (such 
as AASHTO, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and 
American Public Transportation Association), which broadly represent 
state and local transportation, transit, and planning interests and 
perspectives, both in urban and rural communities. 

We also reviewed the comments submitted to DOT and conducted semi-
structured interviews with state and local officials from 29 grantee 
agencies in 13 states--Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, 
North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, 
Washington, Wyoming, and Utah. We developed criteria--population 
growth trends, population size, geographic location, transit 
infrastructure age, and experiences managing and measuring 
transportation project performance--which we used to select a cross-
section of grantee agencies (i.e., state transportation agencies, 
state highway safety offices, metropolitan and rural planning 
organizations, and transit agencies). We also relied on suggestions 
from trade organizations and DOT to identify agencies that would meet 
our criteria and to identify specific state and local officials. Based 
on these criteria, in four states, we interviewed officials from the 
state department of transportation, one or more metropolitan planning 
organizations, local transit providers, and DOT regional oversight 
offices;[Footnote 59] in the remaining nine states, we interviewed 
officials from at least one state transportation agency, planning 
organization or transit agency in that state. In addition to 
discussing anticipated challenges, state and grantee officials also 
provided information about state and local transportation planning 
processes, the experience and extent of available performance 
management data, and DOT's progress to date with its outreach and 
rulemaking. The results of interviews with state and local officials 
from these 29 grantee agencies cannot be generalized to all federal 
transportation grantees; however, they provided insight into the types 
of challenges that some grantees anticipate in implementing DOT's 
future rulemaking and overall performance based approach, as well as, 
perspectives on DOT's outreach and rulemaking progress. 

To further understand the challenges that states and other grantees 
may face, we also reviewed the draft results of a questionnaire DOT 
administered to its 52 FHWA Division Offices assessing states' 
readiness to implement a performance-based approach. This 
questionnaire was administered from July through August 2014, and its 
purpose was to assist FHWA in how to best design program support for 
states in meeting requirements under DOT's future performance-based 
approach. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2014 to January 2015 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Department of Transportation Rulemakings for Selected MAP-
21 Performance Requirements: 

Table 2: Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Proposed Rulemakings 
Incorporating Selected MAP-21 Performance Requirements: 

Proposed rulemakings: Safety Performance Measure (comment period for 
rule closed): 

Requirement: Department of Transportation (DOT) to 
establish measures for states to assess serious injuries and fatalities 
per vehicle mile traveled and the number of serious injuries and 
fatalities; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(c)(4). 

Requirement: States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to 
establish targets for DOT-defined performance measures on serious 
injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile traveled and the number of 
serious injuries and fatalities; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(d), 134(h)(2), 135(d)(2). 

Requirement: States to report biennially to DOT on National Highway 
System condition and performance, the progress made toward the 
achievement of targets, and the effectiveness of the investment 
strategy document in the state asset management plan; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(e). 

Requirement: States to achieve or make significant progress toward the 
achievement of targets to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 148(i). 

Proposed rulemakings: Pavement and Bridge Performance Measure Rule 
(rule under development): 

Requirement: DOT to establish measures to assess the condition of 
pavements on the Interstate and National Highway System and the 
condition of bridges on the National Highway System; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(c)(3). 

Requirement: States and MPOs to establish targets for the condition of 
pavements on the Interstate and National Highway System and the 
condition of bridges on the National Highway System; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. §§ 150(d), 134(h)(2), 135(d)(2). 

Requirement: States to report biennially to FHWA on National Highway 
System condition and performance, the progress made toward the 
achievement of targets, and the effectiveness of the investment 
strategy document in the state asset management plan; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(e). 

Requirement: States to achieve or make significant progress toward the 
achievement of targets to carry out the National Highway Performance 
Program; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 119 (e)(7). 

Requirement: Penalty is imposed on states that do not maintain a 
minimum condition on roads on the Interstate System; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 119 (f)(1)(A). 

Requirement: Penalty is imposed on states that do not maintain a 
minimum condition for bridges on the National Highway System; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 119 (f)(2)(A). 

Proposed rulemakings: Asset Management Plan Rule (Rule under 
development): 

Requirement: DOT shall establish minimum standards for States to use 
in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(c)(3)(A)(i). 

Requirement: DOT to establish requirements for state asset management 
plans; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 119(e)(8). 

Requirement: States to develop an asset management plan for National 
Highway System pavement and bridges; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 119(e). 

Proposed rulemakings: System Performance Measure Rule (rule under 
development): 

Requirement: DOT to establish measures for states to assess the 
performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway 
System, traffic congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, and 
freight movement on the interstate; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(c)(5), (6). 

Requirement: States and MPOs to establish targets for DOT-defined 
measures for the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate 
National Highway System, traffic congestion, on-road mobile source 
emissions, and freight movement on the interstate; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. §§ 150(d), 134(h)(2), 135(d)(2). 

Requirement: Metropolitan planning organizations serving a 
transportation management area over 1 million in population 
representing a nonattainment or maintenance area to develop a new 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) 
performance plan; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 149(l). 

Requirement: States to report biennially to FHWA on highway condition 
and performance, the progress made toward the achievement of targets, 
the effectiveness of the investment strategy document in the state 
asset management plan, and addressing congestion at freight 
bottlenecks; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 150(e). 

Requirement: States to achieve or make significant progress toward the 
achievement of targets set under the National Highway Performance 
Program; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 119 (e)(7). 

Proposed rulemakings: Highway Safety Improvement Program Rule (comment 
period for rule closed): 

Requirement: DOT to establish requirements for state updates of 
strategic highway safety plan and states will update their respective 
plans; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 148(d). 

Requirement: States to report to FHWA on the results of highway safety 
improvement projects and the progress towards achieving targets; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 148(h). 

Proposed rulemakings: Statewide Metropolitan Planning Rule (comment 
period for rule closed)[A]: 

Requirement: Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and states 
coordinate to integrate the goals, objectives, performance measures, 
and targets into the planning process; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. §§ 135(d)(2), 134(h)(2); 49 U.S.C. §§ 
5303(h)(2), 5304(d)(2). 

Requirement: Metropolitan and statewide improvement program, to the 
maximum extent practicable, to include information on how the planned 
programs will achieve targets set by the state and MPOs; 
Source of requirement:23 U.S.C. §§ 134(j)(2)(D),135(g)(4), 49 U.S.C. 
§§ 5303(j)(2)(D), 5304(g)(4). 

Requirement: MPOs to provide a system performance report to document 
progress; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 134(i)(2)(C), 49 U.S.C. § 
5303(i)(2)(C). 

Requirement: DOT to establish criteria to evaluate the effectiveness 
of the performance-based planning process of states, considering the 
extent to which States are making progress toward achieving their 
targets developing appropriate targets; 
Source of requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 135(h)(1), 49 U.S.C. § 5304(h)(1). 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information. GAO-15-217. 

[A] The Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-Metropolitan Planning 
rulemaking has been developed jointly with the Federal Transit 
Administration. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Federal Transit Administration's Proposed and Planned Rules 
Incorporating Selected MAP-21 Performance Requirements: 

Proposed Rulemakings: Transit Asset Management Rule (rule under 
development): 

Requirement: DOT to establish performance measures for transit 
agencies based on transit state of good repair standards; 
Source of Requirement: 49 U.S.C. § 5326(c)(1). 

Requirement: Public transportation federal fund recipients to develop 
transit asset management plans; 
Source of Requirement: 49 U.S.C. § 5326(b)(2). 

Requirement: Public transportation federal fund recipients to 
establish targets for measures established by DOT based on the state 
of good repair standards; 
Source of Requirement: 49 U.S.C. § 5326(c)(2). 

Requirement: Direct recipients of public transportation federal 
funding assistance to report to FTA on progress in achieving transit 
targets; 
Source of Requirement: 49 U.S.C. § 5326(c)(3). 

Proposed Rulemakings: Transit Agency Safety Plan Rule (Rule Under 
Development): 

Requirement: Public transportation federal fund recipients (or states) 
to include targets based on the safety performance criteria and state 
of good repair standards established by DOT; 
Source of Requirement: 49 U.S.C. § 5329(d)(1)(E). 

Requirement: Public transportation federal fund recipients (or states) 
to develop a transit safety plan; 
Source of Requirement: 49 U.S.C. § 5329(d)(1). 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information. GAO-15-217. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Proposed and 
Planned Rules Incorporating Selected MAP-21 Performance Requirements: 

Interim Rulemaking: Highway Safety Program Grants Rule (interim rule 
issued): 

Requirement: States to include highway safety measures in state 
Highway Safety Plans; 
Source of Requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 402(k)(3)(A), (4). 

Requirement: States to establish targets for the performance measures 
required to be included in the state's Highway Safety Plan; 
Source of Requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 402(k)(3)(A)(ii). 

Requirement: States to submit an annual Highway Safety Plan; 
Source of Requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 402(k). 

Requirement: States to annually report to DOT on progress in meeting 
safety performance targets in the Highway Safety Plan; 
Source of Requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 402(k)(3)(E). 

Requirement: DOT to submit biennial reports to Congress evaluating 
each state's performance with respect to the Highway Safety Plan and 
performance targets, and any recommendations for improvements; 
Source of Requirement: 23 U.S.C. § 402(n). 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information. GAO-15-217. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Cohen (Assistant 
Director), Sara Vermillion (Assistant Director), Timothy Bober, 
Melissa Bodeau, Elizabeth Curda, Bert Japikse, Terence Lam, Sara Ann 
Moessbauer, Josh Ormond, Amy Suntoke, Friendly Vang-Johnson, and Matt 
Voit made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Metropolitan planning organizations are defined in federal 
legislation as the designated local decision-making body that is 
responsible for carrying out the transportation planning process in 
metropolitan areas. A metropolitan planning organization must be 
designated for each urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more. 

[2] GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed 
for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 6, 2008). 

[3] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2013). 

[4] Pub. L. No. 112-141, §§ 1106, 1203, 20019,20021, 126 Stat. 405, 
432-437, 524-527, 708 (2012), adding 23 U.S.C. § 150 (national goals 
and performance management measures for highway systems, including 
bridges and tunnels) and 49 U.S.C. § 5326 (transit asset management, 
including goals and performance measures), and amending 23 U.S.C. §§ 
119 (national highway performance program), 134 (metropolitan 
transportation planning), 135 (statewide and nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning), 148 (highway safety improvement), 149 
(congestion mitigation and air quality improvement), 402 (state 
highway safety programs), and 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303 (metropolitan 
transportation planning) 5304 (statewide and nonmetropolitan 
transportation planning), 5310(h) (enhanced mobility of seniors and 
individuals with disabilities), among others. 

[5] The National Highway System (NHS) consists of approximately 
220,000 miles of the nearly 1-million miles of roadways eligible for 
federal-aid. It includes the 47,000-mile Interstate Highway System as 
well as other roadways, arterials, and connectors important to U.S. 
strategic defense policy, and connects to major intermodal facilities, 
such as airports or transit hubs. 

[6] 23 U.S.C. § 119(e)(7), (f). See also 23 U.S.C. § 148(i). 

[7] Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-
159, 128 Stat. 1839 (2014). 

[8] In this review, we analyzed the MAP-21 performance provisions that 
applied to FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA. We did not review the performance 
provisions associated with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) because there were no requirements in MAP-21 
for DOT to develop formal rules related to FMCSA's grantees' 
performance. In addition, we did not review the MAP-21 requirement 
that directed FTA to submit a report to Congress regarding performance 
measures pertinent to grants for the enhanced mobility of seniors and 
individuals with disabilities. 49 U.S.C. § 5310(h). 

[9] These states were Florida, Michigan, New York, and South Carolina. 
We did not interview a transit provider in South Carolina. 

[10] The remaining 7 percent of FHWA's budget includes approximately 
$2.5 billion (6 percent) for other highway programs--including the 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program, the 
Federal Lands Highway program, and highway funding to U.S. 
territories, among other things--and $400 million (1 percent) for 
administrative expenses. 

[11] According to FHWA, about 2,300 of its 2,900 staff work on the 
federal-aid highway program. The remaining 600 staff are associated 
with other FHWA programs, including the Federal Lands Highway Program. 

[12] For federally required state and metropolitan planning processes, 
see 23 U.S.C. §§ 134-135 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303-5305. 

[13] 23 U.S.C. § 135(g)(7) and 23 C.F.R. § 450.218 (a). 

[14] GAO, Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to 
Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Oversight, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-77] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 
2010). 

[15] Historically, grant funds distributed through FHWA's federal-aid 
highway program have been distributed using a series of complex 
formulas that take into account a number of factors, including the 
estimated share of taxes highway users in each state contributed to 
the fund, among other things. See GAO, Highway Trust Fund: All States 
Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes from 2005 
to 2009, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-918] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2011). 

[16] GAO, Federal Transit Programs: Federal Transit Administration Has 
Opportunities to Improve Performance Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-54] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 
2010). 

[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-77]. 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-77]. 

[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400]. 

[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400]. 

[21] GAO, Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully 
Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance 
Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-518] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013). 

[22] Additional information on selected performance requirements 
contained in MAP-21 for FHWA, FTA, NHTSA and their applicable grantees 
is provided in appendix II. 

[23] 23 U.S.C. § 150(e) and 49 U.S.C. § 5326(c)(3). 

[24] Specifically, beginning in 2016 and biennially thereafter, MAP-21 
directed states to report to DOT on the progress they have made in 
achieving targets established in relation to the following performance 
measures: the condition of pavements on the Interstate System and 
National Highway Systems; the condition of bridges on the National 
Highway System, the performance of the Interstate System and National 
Highway System; the number of serious injuries and fatalities, in 
total and per vehicle mile traveled; serious injuries and fatalities 
per vehicle mile traveled and in total; traffic congestion; on-road 
mobile source emissions; and freight movement on the Interstate 
system. 23 U.S.C. § 150(e). 

[25] Pub. L. No. 404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946), codified at 5 U.S.C. ch. 5. 

[26] According to DOT officials, a peer exchange is an opportunity for 
transportation planning staff to interact, share information, 
accomplishments, and lessons learned from the field and develop 
approaches to overcome shared transportation planning challenges. The 
peer exchanges look to advance the state of practice in multimodal 
transportation planning nationwide by organizing, facilitating, and 
documenting peer events to share noteworthy practices among state 
DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and local and tribal transportation 
planning agencies. 

[27] AMPO is a national member-based organization that provides MPOs 
with technical assistance and training, conferences and workshops, and 
research among other services. The Transportation Research Board 
(TRB), one of six major divisions of the National Research Council, is 
a private, nonprofit institution. The TRB provides services to 
government agencies and the public as well as to the scientific and 
engineering communities. 

[28] See 79 Fed. Reg. 31214 (June 2, 2014). 

[29] A transportation management area is an urbanized area with a 
population greater than 200,000, based on the 2010 census. If 
requested by the Governor and the MPO in the area, an area with a 
population less than 200,000 can also be designated as a 
transportation management area. 23 U.S.C. § 134(k). 

[30] FTA officials stated that while the National Transit Safety plan 
will be established outside of the rulemaking process, the plan will 
still be subject to public notice and comment. 

[31] 79 Fed. Reg. 17464 (Mar. 28, 2014); 79 Fed. Reg. 13846 (Mar. 11, 
2014). 

[32] 80 Fed. Reg. 326 (Jan. 5, 2015). 

[33] 79 Fed. Reg. 31784 (Jun. 2, 2014). 

[34] Specifically, as discussed in DOT's December 2014 Report on DOT 
Significant Rulemakings, FHWA planned to finalize the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program rule in August 2015, and the Safety Performance 
Measure and Statewide, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan rules in 
September 2015. 

[35] GAO, Federal Rulemaking: Improvements Needed to Monitoring and 
Evaluation of Rules Development as Well as to the Transparency of OMB 
Regulatory Reviews, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-205] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 
2009). 

[36] GAO, Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to 
Respond to Public Comments, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-21], (Washington, D.C.: December 
2012). 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-21]. 

[38] 23 U.S.C. §150. 

[39] GHSA, a national transportation organization, represents the 
state and territorial highway safety offices that are responsible for 
implementing programs to address behavioral highway safety issues. 

[40] GAO, Federal Transit Programs: Federal Transit Administration Has 
Opportunities to Improve Performance Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-54] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 
2010). 

[41] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-54]. We 
recommended, among other things, that FTA study and report to Congress 
on options for adding performance accountability mechanisms to transit 
grant programs. DOT agreed to consider our recommendation. 

[42] AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association. AASHTO represents 
highway and transportation departments in the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. AASHTO also represents all five 
transportation modes: air, highways, public transportation, rail, and 
water. AASHTO's stated primary goal is to foster the development, 
operation, and maintenance of an integrated national transportation 
system. 

[43] These principles include, among other things, that initial 
national-level performance measures should build on existing 
performance measures, management practices, data sets, and reporting 
processes. Another principle is that national-level performance 
measures should focus on areas and assets over which state DOTs have 
control. 

[44] Officials and representatives also reported other challenges to a 
lesser extent including coordination or planning between local 
stakeholders and target setting. 

[45] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-54]. 

[46] The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a data 
collection system that provides a census of all fatal traffic crashes 
in the United States. FARS data provides support for most of the 
traffic and highway safety programs aimed at reducing the number of 
fatalities on the Nation's highways. These data are collected on a 
purely voluntary basis through cooperative agreements between NHTSA 
and each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

[47] 79 Fed. Reg. 13846 (Mar. 11, 2014). 

[48] According to a Michigan DOT official, the agency currently 
collects service miles, service hours, and age of vehicle on rural 
transit vehicles, and it would be difficult to collect consistent 
condition data, such as a condition rating or performance rating for 
each vehicle or the fleet as a whole. 

[49] GAO. Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would 
Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-740] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 
2014). 

[50] MAP-21 includes a goal to reduce congestion--which could 
incorporate local traffic congestion caused by freight flows--and a 
goal to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement on the 
national freight network. For more information, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-740]. 

[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-740]. 

[52] NARC is a national member-based organization that provides 
information and research on key national policy issues and federal 
policy developments. The association conducts training sessions, 
conferences, workshops and webinars for its members which include 
regional councils, metropolitan planning organizations, and other 
entities. 

[53] GAO, Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to 
Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-868], (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009). 

[54] This figure represents undiscounted incremental costs. 

[55] According to FHWA, it could not directly quantify the expected 
benefits due to data limitations and the nature of the benefits from 
the proposed rule. Therefore, in order to evaluate benefits, FHWA used 
a break-even analysis as the primary approach to quantify benefits. 
Following this approach, FHWA used the break-even analysis to assess 
the level of reduction in fatalities or incapacitating injuries needed 
for the benefits to justify the costs of the proposed rule. The 
results of the break-even analysis showed that the proposed rule would 
need to prevent approximately 7 fatalities or an equivalent 153 
incapacitating injuries nationwide over 10 years to generate enough 
benefits to outweigh the cost of the proposed rule. 

[56] FTA's ANPRM for its planned transit performance rules sought 
input on the need for public transportation providers to identify a 
chief safety officer who reports to a general manager or equivalent. 

[57] FTA conducted these pilot projects in California, Idaho, 
Illinois, Massachusetts, and Utah. 

[58] In this review, we analyzed the MAP-21 performance provisions 
that applied to FHWA, FTA and NHTSA. We did not review the performance 
provisions associated with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) because there were no requirements in MAP-21 
for DOT to develop formal rules related to FMCSA's grantees' 
performance. In addition, we did not review the MAP-21 requirement 
that directed FTA to submit a report to Congress regarding performance 
measures pertinent to grants for the enhanced mobility of seniors and 
individuals with disabilities. (49 U.S.C. § 5310(h)). 

[59] These four states were Florida, Michigan, New York, and South 
Carolina. We did not interview a transit provider in South Carolina. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]