Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Road shoulders"
GAO-16-575, Jun 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, FHWA has not determined what actions, if any, it plans to take to address this recommendation. During 2019, FHWA officials stated that the agency was planning, in consultation with state departments of transportation, to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results from crash-test labs. The initial plan was to work with an outside organization that would assume responsibility for third party verification by mid to late 2020. This outside organization was to be responsible for developing guidelines with respect to lab independence and dealing with cases where a testing lab and a hardware developer are owned by the same parent company. According to FHWA officials, while the agency engaged with two outside organizations, it has not been able to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results through an outside organization and is considering additional options. As a result, FHWA is re-evaluating actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, FHWA has not determined what actions, if any, it plans to take to address this recommendation. During 2019, FHWA officials stated that the agency was planning, in consultation with state departments of transportation, to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results from crash-test labs. The initial plan was to work with an outside organization that would assume responsibility for third party verification by mid to late 2020. According to FHWA officials, while the agency engaged with two outside organizations, it has not been able to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results through an outside organization and is considering additional options. As a result, FHWA is re-evaluating actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, FHWA officials stated that the agency expects the pilot program report to be issued in December 2020, but it will not report results because the sample sizes were too small. In addition, officials told us that no further research into in-service performance evaluations are planned.
GAO-14-114, Feb 3, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: FMCSA did not agree with our recommendation, disputing the methodology and conclusions in our report. However, we continue to believe that addressing Safety Measurement System (SMS) methodology limitations has merit and could help the agency better target FMCSA's resources to the carriers that pose the highest risk of crashing. For example, we found FMCSA requires a minimum level of information for a carrier to receive an SMS score; however, this requirement is not strong enough to produce sufficiently reliable scores. As a result, FMCSA identified many carriers as high risk that were not later involved in a crash, potentially causing FMCSA to miss opportunities to intervene with higher risk carriers. To fully implement this recommendation, FMCSA should revise SMS methodology to account for data limitations that limit comparisons so that the FMCSA is better positioned to identify and mitigate carriers that pose the greatest safety risks. FMCSA has recently developed and tested a new methodological approach that could potentially account for the limitations we identified. While FMCSA has not yet committed to deploying the new methodology, they hope to do so some time in 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) agreed with the basic principles that GAO addressed in this area, but disagreed with GAO's characterization of FMCSA's proposed Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) rule. In January 2016, FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed a revised methodology for issuance of a safety fitness determination for motor carriers. Specifically, the new methodology would have determined when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial motor vehicles in or affecting interstate commerce based on the carrier's on-road safety data; an investigation; or a combination of both. However, in July 2018, in part due to a review of SMS by the National Academies of Science congressionally mandated evaluation of SMS, FMCSA announced that the enhancements previously proposed will not be completed.