This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-261 
entitled 'Diesel Pollution: Fragmented Federal Programs That Reduce 
Mobile Source Emissions Could Be Improved' which was released on 
February 7, 2012. 

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 Committees: 

February 2012: 

Diesel Pollution: 

Fragmented Federal Programs That Reduce Mobile Source Emissions Could 
Be Improved: 

GAO-12-261: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-261, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Exhaust from diesel engines is a harmful form of air pollution. EPA 
has issued emissions standards for new diesel engines and vehicles, 
but older mobile sources of diesel emissions—-such as trucks and 
buses-—continue to emit harmful pollution. Programs at DOE, DOT, and 
EPA provide funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions, such 
as retrofitting existing diesel engines and vehicles. The existence of 
these programs at multiple agencies has raised questions about the 
potential for unnecessary duplication. In response to a mandate in the 
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010, GAO examined the (1) extent of 
duplication, overlap, fragmentation, or gaps, if any, among federal 
grant, rebate, and loan programs that address mobile source diesel 
emissions; (2) effectiveness of federal funding for activities that 
reduce mobile source diesel emissions; and (3) extent of collaboration 
among agencies that fund these activities. GAO analyzed program data, 
documents, and relevant laws and regulations and interviewed agency 
officials. GAO also reviewed three diesel-related tax expenditures. 

What GAO Found: 

Federal grant and loan funding for activities that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs at the 
Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT), 
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). From fiscal years 2007 
through 2011, the programs obligated at least $1.4 billion for 
activities that have the effect of reducing mobile source diesel 
emissions. The programs have varying goals and purposes; nevertheless, 
each program allows or requires a portion of its funding to support 
activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions, such as 
replacing fleets of older diesel trucks or school buses with natural 
gas vehicles. In addition, each of the 14 programs overlaps with at 
least one other program in the specific activities they fund, the 
program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding. GAO also 
identified several instances of duplication where more than one 
program provided grant funding to the same recipient for the same type 
of activities. However, GAO was unable to determine whether 
unnecessary duplication exists because of limited information on 
program administrative costs, among other things. GAO did not find any 
gaps among the programs, such as mobile sources that are not eligible 
for funding. 

The effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions is unknown because agencies vary in the extent 
to which they have established performance measures. DOE and EPA have 
established performance measures for the strategic goals related to 
their programs that reduce mobile source diesel emissions. DOT has 
established such measures for two of its administrations-—the Federal 
Aviation Administration and Federal Highway Administration—-but has 
not established such measures for the Federal Transit Administration 
for two of the four strategic goals that link to its programs that 
fund diesel emissions reduction activities. Instead, agency officials 
said they collect information on the current condition of the nation’s 
transit fleet, among other things, to measure the performance of its 
programs. As GAO has previously reported, principles of good 
governance indicate that agencies should establish quantifiable 
performance measures to demonstrate how they intend to achieve their 
goals and measure the extent to which they have done so. In addition, 
13 of the 14 programs have purposes other than decreasing diesel 
emissions, and diesel reductions are a side benefit of efforts to 
achieve these other goals. As a result, few programs collect diesel-
related performance information. Incomplete performance information 
may limit the ability of agencies to assess the effectiveness of their 
programs and activities that reduce diesel emissions. 

The programs that fund activities that reduce diesel emissions 
generally do not collaborate because of the differing purposes and 
goals of each program, according to senior DOE, DOT, and EPA 
officials. The officials also were sometimes unaware of other programs 
that fund similar activities and said that any existing collaboration 
was on a case-by-case basis. GAO’s previous work has shown that 
although federal programs have been designed for different purposes, 
coordination among programs with related responsibilities is essential 
to efficiently and effectively meet national concerns. Further, 
without a coordinated approach, programs can waste scarce funds, 
confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall 
effectiveness of the federal effort. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOT’s Federal Transit Administration develop 
performance measures for its two relevant strategic goals and that 
DOE, DOT, and EPA establish a strategy for collaboration among their 
programs that fund activities that reduce diesel emissions. DOE and 
EPA agreed with the relevant recommendation, and DOE questioned 
several findings. DOT questioned several findings and both 
recommendations and neither agreed nor disagreed with the 
recommendations. GAO continues to believe in the need for the 
performance measures and collaboration. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-261]. For more 
information, contact David Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or 
trimbled@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Federal Funding for Activities That Reduce Diesel Emissions Is 
Fragmented across 14 Programs: 

The Effectiveness of Federal Funding for Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Activities Is Unknown: 

Limited Collaboration May Hinder the Effectiveness of Federal Funding 
for Activities That Reduce Diesel Emissions: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Additional Information on Federal Programs That Provide 
Grants or Loans for Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Activities: 

Appendix III: Tax Expenditures Related to Mobile Source Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Activities: 

Appendix IV: Strategic Goals and Establishment of Performance Measures 
Related to Programs That Fund Activities That Reduce Mobile Source 
Diesel Emissions: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Transportation: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Estimated Federal Funds Obligated for Mobile Source Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Activities, by Agency and Program, Fiscal Years 
2007-2011: 

Table 2: Overlapping Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Activities, Goals, and Eligible Recipients, by Agency and Program: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Effective Dates of Major Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limits for 
Newly Manufactured Mobile Sources of Diesel Emissions, by Source: 

Figure 2: Effective Dates of Major Particulate Matter Emission Limits 
for Newly Manufactured Mobile Sources of Diesel Emissions, by Source: 

Abbreviations: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 7, 2012: 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Fred Upton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

Diesel engines play a vital role in public transportation, 
construction, agriculture, and shipping, largely because they are more 
durable and reliable than gasoline-powered engines, as well as 25 to 
35 percent more energy efficient. However, exhaust from diesel engines 
is a more pervasive and harmful form of air pollution than exhaust 
from gasoline-powered engines. Diesel exhaust contains air pollutants 
such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, as well as other 
harmful substances that affect public health and the environment. 
[Footnote 1] Since 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
implemented standards that have progressively lowered the maximum 
allowable amount of certain pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and 
particulate matter, from new diesel engines by more than 98 percent. 
However, the most stringent standards generally apply to diesel 
engines and vehicles built after 2007, and EPA estimates that more 
than 20 million mobile sources of diesel emissions built before 2007--
13 million on-highway vehicles, 7 million nonroad engines, and 47,000 
locomotive and marine engines--continue to emit higher amounts of 
harmful pollutants than newer engines.[Footnote 2] 

Programs at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), and EPA address mobile source diesel emissions 
by funding projects that, among other things, retrofit, rebuild, or 
replace existing diesel engines or vehicles; install devices that 
reduce idling of diesel engines; and convert diesel engines and 
vehicles to use cleaner fuels, such as natural gas or propane. The 
existence of these programs at multiple agencies has raised questions 
about the potential for unnecessary duplication. We have previously 
reported that fragmentation and overlap among government programs can 
lead to such duplication.[Footnote 3] Fragmentation occurs when more 
than one federal agency, or more than one organization within an 
agency, is involved in the same broad area of national need. Overlap 
occurs when multiple agencies and programs have similar goals, engage 
in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar 
beneficiaries. We have also reported that federal programs 
contributing to the same or similar outcomes should closely coordinate 
to improve their overall effectiveness.[Footnote 4] 

In response to a mandate in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 
2010, this report examines the (1) extent to which duplication, 
overlap, fragmentation, or gaps, if any, exist among federal grant, 
rebate, and loan programs that address mobile source diesel emissions; 
(2) effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions; and (3) extent to which collaboration takes 
place among agencies that fund activities that reduce mobile source 
diesel emissions.[Footnote 5] This report also provides information on 
tax expenditures that address mobile source diesel emissions.[Footnote 
6] 

To address the first objective, we reviewed relevant statutes and 
regulations; conducted a literature review; analyzed agency documents; 
interviewed agency officials and industry stakeholders; and conducted 
Internet searches to identify grant, rebate, and loan programs that 
fund mobile source diesel emissions reduction activities. We then 
reviewed agency documents and conducted structured interviews of 
agency officials from each relevant DOE, DOT, and EPA program we 
identified. We conducted interviews about the program's purpose, 
goals, eligible activities, target beneficiaries, and types of funding 
to identify areas of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation. We also 
compared the types of eligible recipients under each program with 
available data on the sources of diesel emissions to identify any gaps 
among the programs. In addition, we obtained and analyzed funding data 
from the three agencies to estimate the total amount of federal 
funding for diesel emissions reduction projects from fiscal years 2007 
through 2011. We selected this period because, by 2007, EPA had issued 
emissions standards for key on-road sources, such as heavy-duty trucks 
and buses, as well as a rule requiring refiners to reduce the sulfur 
content of--and therefore emissions from--certain diesel fuels. We 
reviewed documents about the underlying databases and interviewed 
knowledgeable agency officials to assess the reliability of the data 
for each program. We determined that the data obtained from these 
agencies were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 
To respond to the second and third objectives, we reviewed agency 
documents and conducted structured interviews with agency officials 
about program goals and performance, coordination with other programs, 
and assessments of diesel pollution, among other things. We then 
compared these programs' efforts with best practices for federal 
programs that contribute to the same outcome. To identify these best 
practices, we reviewed our prior work as well as relevant statutes, 
including the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the 
Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010. 
[Footnote 7] A more detailed description of our scope and methodology 
is presented in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to February 2012 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: 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible for setting National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants considered 
harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set these 
standards for six such pollutants, known as criteria air pollutants: 
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 
ozone, and lead.[Footnote 8] Diesel exhaust contains nitrogen oxides, 
particulate matter, and numerous other harmful chemicals. Exposure to 
nitrogen oxides can result in adverse respiratory effects, and 
nitrogen oxides contribute to the formation of ozone, which can cause 
respiratory illnesses, decreased lung function, and premature death. A 
large body of scientific evidence links exposure to particulate matter 
to serious health problems, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, 
heart attack, and premature death. 

According to EPA documents, as of 2009, mobile diesel sources emitted 
about 47 percent (6.4 million tons) of the nation's nitrogen oxides 
and about 16 percent (300,000 tons) of its particulate matter. 
[Footnote 9] EPA estimated that on-highway trucks and vehicles and 
nonroad sources, such as agriculture and construction equipment, 
contributed about 57 percent of these nitrogen oxide emissions and 58 
percent of the particulate matter emissions, and marine and locomotive 
sources contributed the remaining 43 percent and 42 percent of such 
emissions, respectively, from diesel engines. 

EPA has progressively implemented more stringent diesel emissions 
standards to lower the amount of key pollutants from mobile diesel 
sources since 1984.[Footnote 10] For example, EPA regulations for 
heavy-duty highway diesel engines required a 98 percent reduction from 
1988 allowable levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter 
emissions for new engines built after 2009. The most recent emissions 
standards for construction and agricultural equipment began to take 
effect in 2008 and required a 95 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides 
and a 90 percent reduction in particulate matter from previous 
standards, which took effect in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, EPA issued its 
most recent regulations for new marine vessels and locomotives, which 
EPA expects will, by 2030, reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from the 
engines of these sources by about 80 percent and particulate matter 
emissions by about 90 percent compared to previous standards. Figures 
1 and 2 show the effective dates of major reductions in allowable 
amounts of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from mobile 
diesel sources. 

Figure 1: Effective Dates of Major Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limits for 
Newly Manufactured Mobile Sources of Diesel Emissions, by Source: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Grams/brake horsepower-hour[A]: 

Year: 1988; 
On-Road Engines: 10.7. 

Year: 1989; 
On-Road Engines: 10.7. 

Year: 1990; 
On-Road Engines: 10.7. 

Year: 1991; 
On-Road Engines: 5. 

Year: 1992; 
On-Road Engines: 5. 

Year: 1993; 
On-Road Engines: 5. 

Year: 1994; 
On-Road Engines: 5. 

Year: 1995; 
On-Road Engines: 5. 

Year: 1996; 
On-Road Engines: 5; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 1997; 
On-Road Engines: 5; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 1998; 
On-Road Engines: 4; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 1999; 
On-Road Engines: 4; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2000; 
On-Road Engines: 4; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2001; 
On-Road Engines: 4; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2002; 
On-Road Engines: 4; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2003; 
On-Road Engines: 4; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2004; 
On-Road Engines: 2.4; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2005; 
On-Road Engines: 2.4; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 6.9. 

Year: 2006; 
On-Road Engines: 2.4; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2007; 
On-Road Engines: 2.4; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2008; 
On-Road Engines: 2.4; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2009; 
On-Road Engines: 2.4; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2010; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 12.7; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2011; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 8.2; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2012; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 8.2; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2013; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 8.2; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2014; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 8.1; 
Marine Engines: 8.2; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2015; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 1.3; 
Marine Engines: 8.2; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2016; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 1.3; 
Marine Engines: 8.2; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Year: 2017; 
On-Road Engines: 0.2; 
Locomotives Engines: 1.3; 
Marine Engines: 1.3; 
Non-Road Engines[B]: 3. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] Grams per brake horsepower-hour is a measure of the grams of 
nitrogen oxides a vehicle or engine emits per the amount of energy the 
vehicle or engine uses during one hour. 

[B] These emission limits apply to nonroad engines at or above 175 
horsepower, such as a large bulldozer engine. EPA has also set 
nitrogen oxide emission standards for such engines below 50 
horsepower, such as small tractor engines, and engines between 50 and 
175 horsepower, which took effect in 2006 and 2008, respectively. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 2: Effective Dates of Major Particulate Matter Emission Limits 
for Newly Manufactured Mobile Sources of Diesel Emissions, by Source: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Grams/brake horsepower-hour[A]: 

Year: 1988; 
On-Road Engines: 0.6. 

Year: 1989; 
On-Road Engines: 0.6. 

Year: 1990; 
On-Road Engines: 0.6. 

Year: 1991; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1992; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1993; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1994; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1995; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1996; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1997; 
On-Road Engines: 0.25. 

Year: 1998; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1. 

Year: 1999; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1. 

Year: 2000; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.4. 

Year: 2001; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.4. 

Year: 2002; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.4. 

Year: 2003; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.4. 

Year: 2004; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.4. 

Year: 2005; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.4. 

Year: 2006; 
On-Road Engines: 0.1; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2007; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2008; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2009; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2010; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2011; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.24; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.37; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2012; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.1; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.37; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2013; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.1; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.37; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2014; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.1; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.09; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2015; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.03; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.09; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2016; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.03; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.09; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Year: 2017; 
On-Road Engines: 0.01; 
Locomotive Engines: 0.03; 
Marine Engines[B]: 0.03; 
Non-Road Engines[C]: 0.15. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] Grams per brake horsepower-hour is a measure of the grams of 
particulate matter a vehicle or engine emits per the amount of energy 
the vehicle or engine uses during one hour. 

[B] These emission limits apply to nonroad engines at or above 175 
horsepower, such as a large bulldozer engine. EPA has also set 
particulate matter emission standards for such nonroad engines below 
50 horsepower, such as small tractor engines, which took effect in 
2000 and 2006. 

[C] The 1998 emission limit in the figure applies to urban buses. EPA 
also set particulate matter standards for heavy-duty trucks that took 
effect in 1998, which limited emissions from these engines to 0.1 
grams per brake horsepower-hour. 

[End of figure] 

Owners and operators of diesel engines can undertake a variety of 
activities to reduce diesel emissions, including retrofitting, 
rebuilding, or replacing existing diesel engines or vehicles; 
installing devices that reduce idling of diesel engines; and 
converting diesel engines and vehicles to use cleaner fuels. 
Retrofitting existing diesel engines generally involves the 
installation of emissions control devices, such as filters, on a 
vehicle's tailpipe. Rebuilding components of existing diesel engines 
can return engines to their original emissions levels or involve the 
installation of new technology that produces lower levels of 
emissions. Replacing existing diesel engines and vehicles with newer, 
lower emitting engines or vehicles can lead to significant emissions 
reductions, but because it is a costly option, it may be most 
appropriate for the oldest, most polluting vehicles. Devices that 
reduce idling of diesel engines generally allow a vehicle's heat, air 
conditioning, and other electrical equipment to run without operation 
of the vehicle's main engine. Converting diesel vehicles and engines 
to use cleaner fuels can also provide significant emissions reductions. 

The Government Performance and Results Act, as amended, requires 
agencies to prepare annual performance plans that contain, among other 
things, a set of annual goals that establish the agencies' intended 
performance and measures that can be used to assess progress toward 
achieving those goals. DOE, DOT, and EPA establish and organize these 
goals and performance measures at differing agency and administrative 
levels. Specifically, DOE and EPA establish strategic goals and 
performance measures for each goal as part of their agencywide 
performance plans. DOT establishes strategic goals as part of its 
agencywide strategic plan, but the agency's administrations--the 
Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and 
Federal Transit Administration, among others--generally establish 
their own performance measures for assessing their programs' 
contributions to the department's strategic goals. 

Federal Funding for Activities That Reduce Diesel Emissions Is 
Fragmented across 14 Programs: 

Federal grant and loan funding for activities that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs at DOE, DOT, 
and EPA. Many of these programs generally target air pollution, but of 
the 14 programs, one--EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program--
has a specific purpose of reducing mobile source diesel emissions. The 
remaining 13 programs focus on other goals or purposes, such as 
supporting energy efficiency projects or reducing petroleum use. 
Nevertheless, each of these programs allows or requires a portion of 
its funding to support activities that have the effect of reducing 
mobile source diesel emissions. For example, authorizing legislation 
for DOT's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program 
directs grant recipients to give priority to certain activities, 
including retrofitting diesel engines and vehicles. The 14 programs 
provide funding through one or more mechanisms, including competitive 
grants, formula grants, and loans.[Footnote 11] Specifically, 13 of 
the programs provide funding through competitive and formula grants, 
and 1 program--DOT's State Infrastructure Banks program--provides 
loans.[Footnote 12] We did not identify any gaps in the programs, such 
as mobile sources that are not eligible for funding. See appendix II 
for additional information about each program. 

From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, these 14 programs obligated at 
least $1.4 billion for activities that have the effect of reducing 
mobile source diesel emissions.[Footnote 13] According to data from 
DOE, DOT, and EPA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
provided about $870 million of this funding. The $1.4 billion amount 
is a lower bound because DOT could not determine the amount of grant 
and loan funding some of its programs have provided for projects that 
reduce mobile source diesel emissions. According to DOT officials, the 
agency does not track this information because statutory program 
requirements do not call for the agency to do so.[Footnote 14] These 
activities that have the effect of reducing mobile source diesel 
emissions include replacing fleets of older diesel trucks or school 
buses with natural gas vehicles, installing particulate matter filters 
on construction equipment, and replacing diesel-powered airport 
luggage transporters with electric vehicles. As table 1 shows, some of 
the programs that support these activities have broad purposes, such 
as increasing energy efficiency in transportation, reducing petroleum 
consumption, or funding public transportation projects, and other 
programs have narrower purposes, such as reducing emissions at 
airports, constructing ferry boats and related facilities, or 
promoting alternative transportation systems in and around national 
parks. 

Table 1: Estimated Federal Funds Obligated for Mobile Source Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Activities, by Agency and Program, Fiscal Years 
2007-2011: 

Agency/program: DOE; Clean Cities program; 
Purpose: To advance the nation's economic, environmental, and energy 
security by funding projects that reduce petroleum use in 
transportation; 
Grants: $305 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOE; Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 
program; 
Purpose: To support energy efficiency and conservation projects that 
reduce fossil fuel emissions and energy use and improve energy 
efficiency in the transportation and building sectors; 
Grants: $256 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOE; State Energy Program; 
Purpose: To support state development and implementation of strategies 
and goals that promote energy efficiency and conservation; 
Grants: $11 million; 
Loans: 0. 

DOE total: 
Grants: $572 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Aviation Administration; Voluntary 
Airport Low Emissions program; 
Purpose: To reduce airport ground vehicle and equipment emissions at 
airports in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas; 
Grants: $18 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program; 
Purpose: To support transportation projects that contribute to the 
attainment or maintenance of carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate 
matter air quality standards and relieve congestion; 
Grants: $178 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; Ferry Boat 
Discretionary program; 
Purpose: To fund the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 
facilities; 
Grants: $26 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; State 
Infrastructure Banks program; 
Purpose: To facilitate state establishment of infrastructure banks to 
provide nongrant assistance for eligible transportation projects; 
Grants: 0; 
Loans: $6 million[A]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Bus and Bus 
Facilities program; 
Purpose: To replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related 
equipment and construct or rehabilitate bus-related facilities; 
Grants: 0[B]; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Clean Fuels Grant 
program; 
Purpose: To assist achievement and maintenance of air quality 
standards by providing grants for clean fuel buses and facilities; 
Grants: $17 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; National Fuel 
Cell Bus Technology Development program; 
Purpose: To develop commercially viable fuel cell bus technology and 
related infrastructure; 
Grants: $11 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Transit in Parks 
program; 
Purpose: To promote alternative transportation systems in and around 
national parks and other federal lands; 
Grants: 0[C]; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Transit 
Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program; 
Purpose: To reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions of 
public transportation systems; 
Grants: $96 million; 
Loans: 0. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Urbanized Area 
Formula Grants program; 
Purpose: To support capital projects, planning, transit enhancements, 
and certain operating costs for public transportation in urbanized 
areas; 
Grants: 0[B]; 
Loans: 0. 

DOT total: 
Grants: $346 million[D]; 
Loans: $6 million. 

Agency/program: EPA; Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program; 
Purpose: To reduce emissions from existing diesel engines and vehicles; 
Grants: $512; 
Loans: 0. 

Estimated total federal funding; 
Grants: $1.43 billion[D]; 
Loans: $6 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant laws and DOE, DOT, and EPA data and 
documents. 

Notes: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided 
funding for DOE's Clean Cities, Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant, and State Energy programs; DOT's Ferry Boat 
Discretionary, Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy 
Reduction, and Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs; and EPA's 
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. 

[A] This amount is a lower bound because Federal Highway 
Administration officials do not obtain complete data from states on 
projects funded through the State Infrastructure Bank program. 

[B] DOT was unable to provide information on the amount of funding 
this program awarded for projects that reduced mobile source diesel 
emissions. 

[C] We were unable to identify any projects this program funded during 
fiscal years 2007-2011 that reduced mobile source diesel emissions. 
However, this program does allow its funding to support activities 
that reduce these emissions. 

[D] This total is a lower bound because agencies were unable to 
determine the amount of funding that some of their programs provided 
for activities that reduce diesel emissions. 

[End of table] 

As table 2 shows, each of the 14 relevant programs overlaps with at 
least one other program in the specific types of activities they fund, 
the program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding. For example, 
6 of the 14 programs share a broad goal of increasing energy 
efficiency, and local governments are eligible to receive grants under 
10 of the programs. In addition, we found that 13 of the 14 programs 
fund activities that retrofit diesel engines or vehicles, and 11 
programs fund activities that reduce diesel vehicle idling. We also 
identified the potential for overlap among these 11 programs and an 
excise tax exemption for certain vehicle idling reduction devices 
because the tax expenditure and the 11 programs all provide incentives 
to use idle reduction devices to reduce diesel emissions. Appendix III 
provides additional information on this and two other tax expenditures 
related to diesel emissions reductions. 

Table 2: Overlapping Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Activities, Goals, and Eligible Recipients, by Agency and Program: 

Agency/program: DOE; Clean Cities; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Empty]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Check]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Check]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Check]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Check]. 

Agency/program: DOE; Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Check]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOE; State Energy Program; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Check]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Check]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Empty]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Aviation Administration; Voluntary 
Airport Low Emissions; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Empty]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Empty]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Check]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Check]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; Ferry Boat 
Discretionary; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Empty]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Check]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; State 
Infrastructure Banks; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Empty]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Bus and Bus 
Facilities; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Empty]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Check]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Clean Fuels Grant; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Check]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Check]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Check]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; National Fuel 
Cell Bus Technology Development; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Empty]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Empty]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Check]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Check]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Empty]; 
Local governments: [Empty]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Empty]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Check]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Transit in Parks; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: 
Eligible recipients: [Empty]; 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Check]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Check]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Transit 
Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Check]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Check]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Empty]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; [Empty]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Empty]. 

Agency/program: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; Urbanized Area 
Formula Grants; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Check]. 

Agency/program: EPA; Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program; 
Activities: 
Retrofit vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Rebuild vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Replace vehicle or engine: [Check]; 
Reduce vehicle idling: [Check]; 
Use cleaner fuel: [Check]; 
Goals: 
Reduce emissions: [Check]; 
Reduce pollution in areas not meeting air quality standards: [Empty]; 
Increase energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Reduce fuel use: [Empty]; 
Eligible recipients: 
State governments: [Check]; 
Local governments: [Check]; 
Land management agencies: [Empty]; 
Transit agencies: [Check]; 
Federally recognized tribes: [Check]; 
Private or nonprofit organizations: [Check]. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant laws and DOE, DOT, and EPA documents 
and interviews. 

[End of table] 

We also identified several instances of duplication where more than 
one program provided funding to the same recipient for the same type 
of activities. In one case, a state transportation agency received 
$5.4 million from DOT's Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions Reduction program to, among other things, upgrade 37 diesel 
buses to hybrid diesel-electric buses; $3.5 million from DOT's 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program to replace 
diesel buses with 4 hybrid diesel-electric buses; and $2.3 million 
from DOT's Clean Fuels Grant program to replace 4 diesel buses with 
hybrid electric buses. In another case, a nonprofit organization 
received $1.1 million from EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 
Program to install emission reduction and idle reduction technologies 
on 1,700 trucks as well as $5.6 million from a state infrastructure 
bank established under DOT's program to equip trucks and truck fleets 
with emissions control and idle reduction devices. 

Even with duplication among the programs, several factors make it 
difficult to precisely determine whether unnecessary duplication 
exists. First, when different programs fund the same diesel emissions 
reduction activities, it is not necessarily wasteful. For example, a 
transit agency could use funds from two different programs to replace 
two separate fleets of aging diesel buses. Second, grant recipients 
may leverage funding from more than one program to support the full 
cost of diesel emissions reduction projects. In some cases, grant 
recipients have used funding from multiple agencies, in addition to 
local matching funds, to support the cost of large projects that 
include multiple diesel emissions reduction activities. Third, 
agencies were often unable to provide information necessary to 
determine whether and to what extent unnecessary duplication exists 
among the programs. For example, several agencies reported that they 
do not track costs for administrative functions at the program level. 
Without information on these costs, it is difficult to determine 
whether and to what extent programs perform duplicative administrative 
functions that could be consolidated to provide grants and loans more 
efficiently. 

The fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs 
result, in part, from their legislative creation as separate programs 
with different purposes that fund a wide range of activities, some of 
which have the effect of reducing mobile source diesel emissions. We 
have previously reported that, as the federal government has responded 
over time to new needs and problems, many agencies have been given 
responsibilities for addressing the same or similar national 
issues.[Footnote 15] Some of this shared responsibility was intended 
to recognize that addressing some issues from a national perspective 
would necessarily involve more than one agency or approach. However, 
the resulting fragmentation, overlap, and duplication may waste 
administrative resources and create an environment in which 
participants are not served as efficiently and effectively as 
possible. In addition, we have previously reported that fragmentation, 
overlap, and duplication suggest the need for further examination of 
programs to identify potential areas for improvement, realignment, 
consolidation, or elimination.[Footnote 16] 

The Effectiveness of Federal Funding for Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Activities Is Unknown: 

The effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions is unknown because agencies vary in the extent 
to which they have established performance measures. In addition, few 
programs collect performance information on their diesel emissions 
reduction activities because 13 of the 14 programs that fund these 
activities have purposes other than reducing diesel emissions. This 
incomplete performance information may limit the ability of agencies 
to assess the effectiveness of their programs and activities that 
reduce diesel emissions. 

Agencies that fund activities that reduce mobile source diesel 
emissions have established performance measures for their strategic 
goals to varying degrees. DOE and EPA have established performance 
measures for the strategic goals related to their programs that reduce 
mobile source diesel emissions. For example, EPA monitors progress 
toward its strategic goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 
developing adaptation strategies to protect and improve air quality by 
measuring, among other things, the tons of mobile source emissions its 
programs reduce. DOT has established such performance measures for two 
of its administrations--the Federal Aviation Administration and 
Federal Highway Administration--but has not established such measures 
for the Federal Transit Administration for two of the four strategic 
goals that link to its programs that fund diesel emissions reduction 
activities. Appendix IV provides additional information on these 
agencies' strategic goals and performance measures related to programs 
that reduce mobile source diesel emissions. 

The Government Performance and Results Act, as amended, generally 
requires agencies to provide a basis for comparing actual results with 
established goals, and as such, federal departments and agencies are 
to comply with Government Performance and Results Act requirements. As 
we have previously reported, Government Performance and Results Act 
requirements also can serve as leading practices at lower levels 
within federal agencies, such as individual divisions, programs, or 
initiatives.[Footnote 17] We have also reported that principles of 
good governance indicate that agencies should establish quantifiable 
performance measures to demonstrate how they intend to achieve their 
goals and measure the extent to which they have done so.[Footnote 18] 
The Federal Transit Administration has not established performance 
measures for its goals of (1) environmental sustainability--that is, 
advancing environmentally sustainable policies and investments that 
reduce carbon and other harmful emissions from transportation sources-
-and (2) economic competitiveness--that is, promoting transportation 
policies and investments that bring lasting and equitable economic 
benefits to the nation and its citizens. Agency officials said they 
generally collect information on the current condition of the nation's 
transit fleet, the use of public transportation, and transit fleet 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to measure the 
performance of the agency's transit programs.[Footnote 19] However, 
this information will not enable the agency to determine the extent to 
which it has met its goals related to environmental sustainability and 
economic competitiveness. 

At the program level, limited performance information is available 
about the results of activities that reduce mobile source diesel 
emissions. The 14 programs that fund activities that reduce diesel 
emissions currently collect performance information on their diesel 
emissions reduction activities to varying degrees. According to agency 
documents and officials, EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program 
collects performance information on the amount and type of diesel 
emissions reductions each project achieves; DOE's three programs 
collect some emissions reduction information but do not quantitatively 
collect diesel emissions reduction information; three of DOT's 
programs collect some performance information related to diesel 
emissions reductions; and the remaining seven DOT programs do not 
collect performance information related to diesel emissions. This 
variation in the amount of diesel-related performance information 
programs collect occurs partially because 13 of the 14 programs that 
fund these activities have purposes other than reducing diesel 
emissions, such as supporting energy efficiency projects or reducing 
petroleum use. However, without information on the results of the 
programs' activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions, the 
overall effectiveness of federal grant and loan funding for activities 
that reduce diesel emissions cannot be determined. 

EPA. EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program collects information 
on the number of diesel engines it replaces, retrofits, and rebuilds 
as well as information on the estimated tons of particulate matter, 
nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon 
emissions it reduces. According to agency documents, in fiscal year 
2008--the most recent year for which data were reported--the program 
reduced approximately 46,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions and 
2,200 tons of particulate matter emissions.[Footnote 20] EPA documents 
show that the cost for these emissions reductions ranged from $400 to 
$2,000 per ton of nitrogen oxide emissions reduced and from $9,000 to 
$27,700 per ton of particulate matter emissions reduced. 

DOE. DOE's Clean Cities program collects information on reductions in 
gasoline and diesel fuel use that the program achieves to measure 
progress toward its program goal of reducing national petroleum use by 
2.5 billion gallons by 2020. DOE's Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant and State Energy programs estimate emissions reductions 
that result from program activities, but neither of these programs 
separately tracks diesel emissions from other emissions reductions. 

DOT's Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation 
Administration's Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program collects 
information on the total amount of criteria pollutant emissions each 
project will reduce, but it does not currently track reductions in 
diesel emissions. 

DOT's Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway 
Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
program collects information from grant recipients on the type and 
quantity of emissions reduced through each project the program funds. 
However, the program does not review or compile this information at 
the national level. The Ferry Boat Discretionary and State 
Infrastructure Banks programs do not collect performance information 
related to diesel emissions reductions. 

DOT's Federal Transit Administration. The Federal Transit 
Administration's Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy 
Reduction program obtains information from grant applicants on the 
amount of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions each project is to 
reduce, but the program does not separately track reductions in diesel 
energy use or diesel emissions. The remaining five Federal Transit 
Administration programs that fund diesel emissions reduction 
activities--Bus and Bus Facilities, Clean Fuels Grant, National Fuel 
Cell Bus Technology Development, Transit in Parks, and Urbanized Area 
Formula Grants--do not collect performance information related to 
diesel emissions reductions. 

Efforts to measure the effects of programs that decrease diesel 
emissions are also hindered by the absence of a baseline assessment of 
nationwide diesel emissions from which agencies could measure 
progress. EPA has assessed national levels of nitrogen oxide and 
particulate matter pollution from some mobile diesel sources, 
including highway vehicles and some nonroad equipment, and DOT 
maintains data on the number of diesel transit vehicles currently in 
use. However, no agency has comprehensively assessed existing diesel 
pollution to identify the most significant mobile sources of diesel 
emissions and the specific areas that face the greatest health risks 
from diesel pollution. Without a more comprehensive assessment, 
agencies cannot identify and target, within their discretion, funding 
toward specific sectors or geographic areas of greatest need.[Footnote 
21] Agencies generally provide funds to recipients based on criteria 
that may derive from law, agency discretion, or a combination thereof. 
Under some programs, agencies allocate funding based on statutory 
formulas or criteria. For example, DOT's Urbanized Area Formula Grants 
program uses a statutory formula to allocate funds on the basis of 
population and population density. EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Act program awards funds competitively but, based on statutory 
criteria, must prioritize projects that maximize health benefits, are 
the most cost-effective, and serve areas with poor air quality, among 
other factors. Under other programs, agencies have some discretion in 
awarding funds. These agencies generally consider applicant 
eligibility and other relevant factors, but this does not include 
consideration of which areas face the greatest diesel-related health 
risks. 

Limited Collaboration May Hinder the Effectiveness of Federal Funding 
for Activities That Reduce Diesel Emissions: 

The federal programs that fund activities that have the effect of 
reducing mobile source diesel emissions generally do not collaborate. 
According to DOE, DOT, and EPA officials, the three agencies consult 
on broad issues, such as to discuss available technologies or 
emissions standards, but these efforts do not involve collaboration on 
diesel-related issues. Moreover, officials from most of the 14 
programs reported that any collaboration across the programs occurs on 
an informal, case-by-case basis. For example, officials from EPA's 
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program said they may contact officials 
from the Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation and 
Air Quality Improvement program to discuss a specific emissions 
reduction technology or project that appears in a grant application 
but that they do not collaborate with officials from this program on a 
regular basis. Also, some program officials reported that enhanced 
collaboration could improve the effectiveness of federal funding for 
activities that reduce diesel emissions. For example, officials from 
EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program said that diesel-related 
programs could share information to more efficiently award grants and 
to reduce duplication of agency efforts, such as researching various 
emissions reduction technologies. 

DOE, DOT, and EPA officials generally reported that they do not 
collaborate on diesel emissions reduction activities with other 
federal programs because they are unaware of the other programs that 
fund these activities, including, in some cases, programs within their 
own agencies. According to agency officials, this is due to the 
differing purposes and goals of each program, which often do not 
directly relate to reducing diesel emissions. However, we have 
previously reported that, although federal programs have been designed 
for different purposes or targeted for different population groups, 
coordination among programs with related responsibilities is essential 
to efficiently and effectively meet national concerns.[Footnote 22] We 
reported that uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, 
confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall 
effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results as envisioned 
by the Government Performance and Results Act implies that federal 
programs contributing to the same or similar results should be closely 
coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent, and, as appropriate, 
program efforts are mutually reinforcing. This means that federal 
agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and 
coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are 
aligned. Also, the Government Performance and Results Act 
Modernization Act of 2010 requires that agency strategic plans include 
a description of how the agency is working with other agencies to, 
among other things, achieve its goals and objectives. 

In addition, we have previously reported that agencies face a range of 
barriers in their efforts to collaborate.[Footnote 23] To overcome 
such barriers and to maximize the performance and results of federal 
programs that share common outcomes, we have previously identified 
practices that can help agencies enhance and sustain 
collaboration.[Footnote 24] These practices include agreeing on agency 
roles and responsibilities in the collaborative effort and identifying 
and addressing needs by leveraging collective resources. Further, we 
have reported that, to the extent that federal efforts are fragmented 
across agency lines, developing crosscutting performance measures 
through interagency coordination could ease implementation burdens 
while strengthening efforts to develop best practices.[Footnote 25] 

Conclusions: 

Over time, EPA has issued more stringent emissions regulations for new 
diesel engines and vehicles, but existing diesel trucks, buses, 
locomotives, ships, agriculture equipment, and construction equipment 
continue to emit harmful pollution. Because diesel engines are durable 
and energy efficient, it could take decades for these older diesel 
vehicles and equipment to fall out of use. As a result, federal 
agencies play an important role in accelerating the attrition of 
existing diesel engines and vehicles and the resulting reduction in 
diesel emissions. However, federal funding that reduces diesel 
emissions is fragmented across 14 programs that overlap in their 
activities, goals, and eligible recipients. Also, the effectiveness of 
this funding is unknown because agencies collect limited performance 
information related to these programs. Because DOT's Federal Transit 
Administration has not developed performance measures for its goals 
related to environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness, 
the agency is unable to fully assess the performance of programs that 
contribute to these goals. In addition, agencies collect limited 
information on the results of the diesel emissions reduction 
activities they fund and do not have a baseline assessment of 
nationwide diesel emissions, which they could use to measure progress. 

Also, collaboration among the 14 programs that fund activities that 
reduce mobile source diesel emissions is essential to efficiently and 
effectively reduce diesel emissions. As the focus on results as 
envisioned by the Government Performance and Results Act implies, 
federal programs contributing to the same or similar results should be 
closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent, and, as 
appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. Agencies often 
face barriers in their efforts to collaborate, and some best practices 
for overcoming these barriers include identifying agency roles and 
responsibilities as well as identifying and leveraging collective 
resources. Further, when federal efforts are fragmented, this 
coordination can be achieved through collaboratively developing 
crosscutting performance measures. However, as we found, these 14 
programs generally do not collaborate and collect limited information 
on the results of the activities they fund that reduce diesel 
emissions. Without collaboration and crosscutting performance 
measures, agencies do not have needed information to assess the 
effectiveness and efficiency of their programs or identify any 
unnecessary duplication. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We are making two recommendations to help ensure effectiveness and 
accountability: 

1. For transit grant programs, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Transportation require the Administrator of the Federal Transit 
Administration to develop quantifiable performance measures, a leading 
practice based in Government Performance and Results Act principles, 
for the agency's environmental sustainability and economic 
competitiveness strategic goals. 

2. For federal funding that reduces diesel emissions, we recommend 
that the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, and the 
Administrator of the EPA, consistent with statutory obligations, 
establish a strategy for collaboration among their grant and loan 
programs in their activities that reduce mobile source diesel 
emissions. This strategy should help the agencies: 

* identify agency roles and responsibilities for activities that 
reduce diesel emissions, including how a collaborative effort will be 
led; 

* identify and address any unnecessary duplication, as appropriate; 

* identify and leverage resources needed to support funding activities 
that reduce diesel emissions; 

* assess baseline levels of diesel pollution and the contributors to 
mobile source diesel emissions to help agencies target, within their 
discretion, investments and, as appropriate, inform efforts to measure 
program effectiveness; and: 

* develop crosscutting performance measures, as appropriate, to 
monitor the collective results of federal funding for activities that 
reduce diesel emissions. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Energy, the 
Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of EPA for their 
review and comment. In its written comments, EPA stated that it agreed 
with our findings and relevant recommendation. EPA's comments can be 
found in appendix V. 

In its comments, DOE questioned several of our findings but agreed 
with our relevant recommendation. Specifically, DOE stated that our 
report mischaracterizes the agency as having a statutory 
responsibility for diesel emissions reductions. Our report does not 
contain such a statement. Rather, it identifies 14 programs, including 
3 DOE programs, that fund activities with the effect of reducing 
diesel emissions and states that programs with related 
responsibilities should coordinate their efforts. Our report states 
that most of the programs we identified have other goals or purposes 
and do not focus on diesel emissions reduction; nonetheless, each of 
the programs does fund such activities. Our report also recognizes the 
varying statutory requirements for each program and recommends that 
the agencies establish a strategy for collaboration that is consistent 
with their existing statutory obligations. DOE also stated that our 
report mischaracterizes DOE as not collaborating with other government 
agencies. Our report states that DOE collaborates with other agencies 
on broad issues but does not collaborate on diesel-related issues. In 
addition, DOE stated that our report mischaracterized the agency as 
sharing redundant national goals with DOT and EPA. Our report does not 
discuss DOE's national goals, their relationship to those of other 
agencies, or whether they are redundant. Rather, our report (1) 
focuses on DOE programs that fund activities that result in diesel 
emissions reductions and (2) demonstrates that these programs share 
similar goals with DOT and EPA programs that fund the same activities. 
Specifically, each of these programs shares some goals, such as 
reducing emissions, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing fuel 
use. DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. DOE's comments and our response can be found in appendix 
VI. 

DOT questioned several of this report's key findings and its 
recommendations. Specifically, DOT stated that we inaccurately 
described the Federal Transit Administration's programs as funding 
diesel emissions reduction activities. Our report identifies 
activities that reduce diesel emissions, including replacing existing 
diesel vehicles and installing devices that reduce idling of diesel 
engines, and identifies six Federal Transit Administration programs 
that fund these same activities. In addition, DOT questioned the 
evidence underlying our finding of fragmentation among the federal 
programs within our review. DOT stated that we identified independent 
programs with varying objectives that, in some cases, include similar 
activities. As we reported, fragmentation occurs when more than one 
federal agency, or more than one organization within an agency, is 
involved in the same broad area of national need. Further, our report 
does not state that fragmentation implies small, incomplete, or broken 
parts strewn across government, as DOT's comments state. Our report 
clearly identifies fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among the 
14 federal programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities. 
Consistent with our established definition of fragmentation and our 
evidence, we stand by our finding that federal grant and loan funding 
for activities that reduce diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 
programs. 

DOT also questioned our finding that the effectiveness of federal 
funding for diesel emissions reduction activities is unknown. DOT 
stated that we could have used available air quality data from EPA to 
assess the effectiveness of the programs we reviewed. We reviewed air 
quality data from EPA and determined that it was not possible to 
establish a causal link between the EPA data and the programs we 
reviewed. Moreover, principles of good governance indicate that 
agencies that use scarce federal resources should establish 
quantifiable performance measures for use in administering their 
programs. This is particularly important when multiple agencies engage 
in the same or similar activities, even if the activities contribute 
to different goals. Related to this finding, DOT questioned why the 
report does not include information that the Federal Transit 
Administration provided on its contribution to air quality improvement 
through replacing transit buses. We reviewed this information and 
found that the numbers the Federal Transit Administration provided 
were based on unverified assumptions and estimates rather than actual 
data on the number of diesel buses replaced. As such, the numbers were 
not reliable for the purposes of our report. 

In several instances, DOT questioned our recommendation that the 
Federal Transit Administration should develop quantifiable performance 
measures for its environmental sustainability and economic 
competitiveness strategic goals. DOT's comments on this recommendation 
reflect a misinterpretation of the recommendation. Specifically, DOT 
incorrectly stated that our report recommended that the Federal 
Transit Administration develop quantifiable performance measures 
relating to diesel emissions reductions. Neither of our 
recommendations called for DOT to establish such performance measures. 
Instead, we recommended that (1) the Federal Transit Administration 
develop performance measures for two of its agencywide strategic goals 
and (2) DOE, DOT, and EPA establish a strategy for collaboration on 
diesel emissions reduction activities that, among other things, helps 
the agencies develop crosscutting performance measures, as 
appropriate, to assess the collective results of federal funding for 
activities that reduce diesel emissions. DOT also stated that it 
operates in full compliance with the Government Performance and 
Results Act. Specifically, DOT said that it has established outcome-
focused performance measures that are appropriate for its programs and 
mission focus. Our report does not assess DOT's compliance with the 
Government Performance and Results Act. Rather, it identifies the 
Federal Transit Administration's strategic goals that relate to the 
agency's relevant programs and states whether the Federal Transit 
Administration has developed performance measures for these goals. Our 
report states that principles of good governance indicate that 
agencies should establish quantifiable performance measures to 
demonstrate how they intend to achieve their goals and measure the 
extent to which they do so. Our report also states that Government 
Performance and Results Act requirements for agencies to set goals for 
program performance and to measure results can serve as leading 
practices for lower levels within federal agencies. We have clarified 
the report language and recommendation to state that, on the basis of 
these leading practices, we recommend the Federal Transit 
Administration establish performance measures for the two agency-wide 
strategic goals of environmental sustainability and economic 
competitiveness that relate to the programs involving diesel emissions 
reduction activities. The Federal Transit Administration provided no 
evidence that it has established performance measures for these 
strategic goals. Importantly, the agency's fiscal year 2012 budget 
justification that it submitted to Congress--the document that Federal 
Transit Administration officials said contained the agency's goals and 
performance measures--did not include performance measures for its 
environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness strategic 
goals. We continue to believe that the Federal Transit Administration 
should establish performance measures for these goals. 

Regarding our recommendation that DOE, DOT, and EPA establish a 
strategy for collaboration among their programs that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions, DOT agreed that collaboration can be useful 
but questioned its usefulness in this context. Specifically, DOT 
stated that the report demonstrates no specific deficiency that has 
occurred due to the existing level of collaboration. As our report 
states, DOE, DOT, and EPA were generally unaware of other programs 
that fund activities that decrease diesel emissions. Additionally, we 
reported that representatives of several DOE and DOT programs were 
unaware of related programs within their own agencies that fund the 
same underlying activities. Our report also states that EPA officials 
said that enhanced collaboration could improve the effectiveness of 
federal funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions. In its 
comments, DOT stated that the report does not offer evidence to 
support why establishing a strategy for collaboration among entities 
that fund these activities should be a priority use of federal 
resources. While the programs we reviewed have been designed for 
different purposes, coordination among programs with related 
responsibilities and that fund the same activities is essential to the 
efficient and effective use of resources. Further, uncoordinated 
programs can waste scarce funds and limit the overall effectiveness of 
federal spending. We therefore continue to believe that our 
recommendation is warranted. 

DOT also stated that the report does not effectively demonstrate that 
our recommended actions will produce cost-effective investments 
appropriate for DOT that do not potentially duplicate efforts 
elsewhere in the government. We believe it is entirely appropriate for 
the Federal Transit Administration to establish performance measures 
for its goals and do not see how this would duplicate other efforts 
within the government. We also continue to believe that establishing a 
strategy for collaboration is an appropriate investment that would 
help ensure the effectiveness and accountability of federal funding 
for activities that reduce diesel emissions. As we noted, such a 
strategy should help agencies identify and address any unnecessary 
duplication. 

Finally, DOT's comments emphasized its view that its programs focus on 
their statutory mission of transit, whereas diesel emissions reduction 
is a corollary benefit. Our report states that most of the programs we 
identified have other goals or purposes and do not focus on diesel 
emissions reduction; nonetheless, each of the programs does fund such 
activities. Our report also recognizes the statutory requirements for 
each program and recommends that the agencies establish a strategy for 
collaboration that is consistent with existing statutory obligations. 
DOT's comments can be found in appendix VII. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Energy and 
Transportation, the Administrator of the EPA, appropriate 
congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, 
this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@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 VIII. 

Signed by: 

David C. Trimble: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines the (1) extent to which duplication, overlap, 
fragmentation, or gaps, if any, exist among federal grant, rebate, and 
loan programs that address mobile source diesel emissions; (2) 
effectiveness of federal funding for activities that reduce mobile 
source diesel emissions; and (3) extent to which collaboration takes 
place among agencies that fund activities that reduce mobile source 
diesel emissions. 

To address the first objective, we identified federal grant, rebate, 
and loan programs that address mobile source diesel emissions, and 
reviewed information about each program to identify duplication, 
overlap, fragmentation, and gaps. To identify the programs that 
address diesel emissions, we (1) conducted a literature review of 
government reports, academic materials, legislation, transcripts, 
appropriations, trade and industry articles, and other relevant 
publications; (2) interviewed agency officials and relevant industry 
stakeholders; and (3) reviewed agency documents, including information 
about activities eligible for funding. For the literature review, we 
searched twenty databases and websites--Article First, Congressional 
Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, Inspectors General, 
Policyfile, ProQuest, Worldcat, National Technical Information 
Services, Wilson's Applied Science and Technical Abstracts, and the 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, among others--for materials 
published in the last 10 years that may identify relevant federal 
grant, rebate, and loan programs. Next, we interviewed agency and 
relevant third-party officials and analyzed agency documents to 
determine if the programs our searches identified could provide 
funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions. For this review, 
we identified programs that fund activities that directly reduce 
diesel emissions and did not include programs that fund activities, 
such as research and development efforts, that have the potential to 
reduce diesel emissions in the future. We held these interviews and 
conducted these searches from June 2011 to September 2011. 

For each program we identified as reducing diesel emissions, we 
conducted structured interviews of agency officials and reviewed 
agency documents to determine the types of funding the program 
provides as well as its purpose, goals, eligible activities, and 
eligible applicants. We then compared each of these areas across the 
programs to identify areas of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation. 
We also compared eligible recipients under each program with available 
data on the sources of diesel emissions to identify any gaps among the 
programs, such as mobile sources of diesel emissions for which funding 
opportunities are not available. For the duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation we found, we interviewed agency officials and relevant 
industry stakeholders to determine its causes and impact. 

In addition, we obtained and analyzed funding data from the Department 
of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the total amount of 
federal funding for diesel emissions reduction projects from fiscal 
years 2007 through 2011. We selected fiscal years 2007 through 2011 as 
our time period because, by 2007, EPA had issued emissions standards 
for key on-road sources, such as heavy-duty trucks and buses, as well 
as a rule requiring refiners to reduce the sulfur content--and 
therefore the emissions--of certain diesel fuels. We obtained these 
data from DOE for the Clean Cities, Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant, and State Energy programs; from DOT's Federal Aviation 
Administration for the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program; from 
DOT's Federal Highway Administration for the Ferry Boat and State 
Infrastructure Banks programs; from DOT's Federal Transit 
Administration for the National Fuel Cell Bus Technology Development 
and Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction 
programs; and from EPA for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. 
However, DOT's Federal Transit Administration was unable to provide 
this data for the Bus and Bus Facilities, Clean Fuels Grant, 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Transit in Parks, 
and Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs.[Footnote 26] A Federal 
Transit Administration official said that because the agency did not 
track which awards under these programs reduced diesel emissions or 
diesel fuel use, it was unable to identify the amount of funding each 
of these programs provided for activities that reduced diesel 
emissions. The official said that the agency did not track these data 
because statutory requirements do not call for such tracking. Instead, 
the agency provided us access to its grants management database, from 
which we estimated the amount of funding provided for diesel emissions 
reduction projects for the Clean Fuels Grant, Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Improvement, and Transit in Parks programs, but we 
were unable to estimate the amount of funding provided through the Bus 
and Bus Facilities or Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs due to 
the limited timeframes of our review. We reviewed documents about the 
underlying databases that DOE, DOT, and EPA use to collect grant 
information and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials to assess 
the reliability of the data for each program. We determined that the 
data obtained from these agencies were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

In addition, the Federal Transit Administration provided estimates of 
the amount that its Bus and Bus Facilities, Clean Fuels Grant, 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Transit in Parks, 
and Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs awarded from fiscal years 
2007 through 2011 for projects that reduced diesel emissions. The 
agency derived these estimates by identifying obligations made under 
each of these five programs from fiscal years 2007 through 2011 for 
purchasing replacement transit vehicles. However, the agency does not 
consistently collect information on the fuel-type of the vehicles it 
replaces; rather it collects information on the intended purchase, by 
fuel-type, for all obligations made in each grant by year and program. 
The Federal Transit Administration provided this information to GAO; 
however, this information does not accurately reflect the amount of 
funding provided for replacement vehicles that reduced diesel 
emissions, and we did not include the information in this report. 

To address the second objective, we reviewed and analyzed agency 
officials' responses to structured interview questions on their 
program goals and performance information. We also analyzed agency 
strategic plans, budget documents, and other agency documentation 
containing performance information. We reviewed relevant provisions of 
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as amended by the 
Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, as 
well as our prior work on performance measurement. 

To address the third objective, we reviewed and analyzed agency 
officials' responses to structured interview questions on coordination 
with other programs and assessment of diesel pollution. We also 
reviewed our prior work on collaboration to compare these programs' 
efforts with best practices for federal programs. In addition, to 
identify tax expenditures that provide incentives that address mobile 
source diesel emissions, we reviewed tax expenditure lists produced by 
the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation; reports by the Congressional Research Service, including the 
2010 tax expenditure compendium; and a DOE list of federal incentives 
related to alternative fuels, vehicles, and air quality.[Footnote 27] 
We also interviewed agency officials at DOE, DOT, and EPA as well as 
industry stakeholders. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to February 2012 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: Additional Information on Federal Programs That Provide 
Grants or Loans for Mobile Source Diesel Emissions Reduction 
Activities: 

Department of Energy: 

Clean Cities program. DOE's Clean Cities program, administered by the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is a government-
industry partnership that works to reduce America's petroleum 
consumption in the transportation sector. The program provides 
competitive grants for projects that implement a range of energy-
efficient and advanced vehicle technologies, such as hybrids, electric 
vehicles, plug-in electric hybrids, hydraulic hybrids, and compressed 
natural gas vehicles, helping reduce petroleum consumption across the 
United States. The program also supports refueling infrastructure for 
various alternative fuel vehicles, as well as public education and 
training initiatives. 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. The Energy 
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, administered by DOE's 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, provides funds 
through competitive and formula grants to states, territories, 
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments to develop 
and implement projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy 
use and fossil fuel emissions in their communities. 

State Energy Program. The State Energy Program, administered by DOE's 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, provides technical 
and financial assistance to states through formula and competitive 
grants. States may use such grants to develop, modify, and implement 
approved state energy conservation plans. 

Department of Transportation: 

Federal Aviation Administration: 

Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program. The Voluntary Airport Low 
Emissions program provides funding to reduce airport ground emissions 
at commercial service airports in areas failing to meet or maintain 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Grant funding generally 
supports projects such as electrification of airport gate systems, the 
incremental cost of purchasing electric luggage carts, and purchasing 
airport shuttle buses that use alternative fuels. The Federal Aviation 
Administration considers applications for Voluntary Airport Low 
Emissions grants on a case-by-case basis based on the project's 
importance relative to other eligible airport activities. The agency 
also considers each project's cost effectiveness and reductions in air 
emissions. 

Federal Highway Administration: 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program. Jointly 
administered by Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit 
Administration, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
program provides grants to state departments of transportation, 
metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies for a 
variety of transportation projects in areas that do not meet or have 
previously failed to meet federal air quality standards. The program 
distributes funding through a statutory formula primarily based on 
population in areas of certain air quality status. The Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users of 2005 expanded the focus of eligible projects under 
the program, placing more priority on diesel engine retrofits and cost-
effective emission reduction and congestion mitigation projects that 
also provide air quality benefits. 

Ferry Boat Discretionary program. The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 amended a predecessor ferry 
program, resulting in this program to construct ferry boats and ferry 
terminal facilities. Eligible projects include both ferry boats 
carrying passengers only and those carrying cars and passengers. In 
general, ferry boats and facilities must be publicly owned or 
operated, and the ferry facilities must provide connections on a 
public road, which has not been designated part of the interstate 
system. The program provides administrative consideration of whether 
the project will result in a usable facility; what other benefits 
exist; whether other funds, either state or local, are committed to 
the project; and whether the project has received program funds in the 
past. 

State Infrastructure Bank program. The State Infrastructure Bank 
program provides the opportunity to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the 
District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to establish 
transportation revolving loan funds. States may capitalize their 
revolving loan funds with federal highway funding, and states could 
offer a range of loans and credit options, such as low-interest loans, 
loan guarantees, or loans requiring repayment of interest-only in 
early years and delayed repayment of the loan's principal. For 
example, through a revolving fund, states could lend money to public 
or private sponsors of transportation projects, project-based or 
general revenues (such as tolls or dedicated taxes) could be used to 
repay loans with interest, and the repayments would replenish the fund 
so that new loans could be supported. 

Federal Transit Administration: 

Bus and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities program. DOT's Bus and 
Bus Facilities program provides capital assistance for new and 
replacement buses, related equipment, and related facilities for 
expansion and maintenance purposes. The projects funded by this 
program are generally determined by Congress. Funds can be provided 
only to state and local governmental authorities. The purpose of the 
program is to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and bus-
related facilities in support of FTA's goal of developing a 
transportation system that (1) maximizes the safe, secure, and 
efficient mobility of individuals; (2) minimizes environmental 
impacts; and (3) minimizes transportation-related fuel consumption and 
reliance on foreign oil. 

Clean Fuels Grant program. This program provides competitive grants to 
assist areas in achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide and to support 
emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit 
buses and markets for those technologies. Eligible projects under the 
program include (1) purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses, including 
buses that employ a lightweight composite primary structure and vans 
for use in revenue service; (2) constructing or leasing clean fuel bus 
facilities or electrical recharging facilities and related equipment; 
and (3) purchasing clean fuel, biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero 
emissions technology buses that exhibit equivalent or superior 
emissions reductions to existing clean fuel or hybrid electric 
technologies. 

National Fuel Cell Bus Technology Development program. This program is 
a research, development, and demonstration competitive grant program 
established to facilitate the development of fuel cell bus technology 
and related infrastructure. The Federal Transit Administration may 
award grants for this purpose to up to three geographically diverse 
nonprofit organizations. The goals of the program are to (1) 
facilitate the development of commercially viable fuel cell bus 
technologies, (2) significantly improve transit bus fuel efficiency 
and reduce petroleum consumption, (3) reduce transit bus emissions, 
(4) establish a globally competitive U.S. industry for fuel cell bus 
technologies, and (5) increase public acceptance of the fuel cell 
vehicles. 

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program. The Transit in Parks 
program was established to address the challenge of increasing vehicle 
congestion in and around our national parks and other federal lands by 
providing competitive grants for capital and planning expenses for new 
or existing alternative transportation systems in the vicinity of 
federally owned or managed recreation areas. According to program 
documents, alternative transportation includes transportation by bus, 
rail, or any other publicly available means of transportation and 
includes sightseeing service. It also includes nonmotorized 
transportation systems such as pedestrian and bicycle trails. The 
program seeks to conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources; 
reduce congestion and pollution; improve visitor mobility and 
accessibility; enhance visitor experience; and ensure access to all, 
including persons with disabilities. 

Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program. 
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 authorized the 
Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program, 
and the program received funding through fiscal year 2011. The program 
did not receive funding for fiscal year 2012 in the relevant 
appropriations act.[Footnote 28] This program provides competitive 
grants to assist public transportation agencies in implementing 
strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy use in 
transit operations. Eligible applicants under the program include 
public transportation agencies, federally recognized tribes, and state 
departments of transportation. Two types of projects are eligible for 
funding under the Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy 
Reduction program: capital investments that assist in reducing the 
energy consumption of a transit agency and capital investments that 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions of a transit agency. For purposes of 
the Transit Investments in Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction 
program, energy consumption is defined as energy purchased directly by 
the public transportation agency. Examples of energy include diesel 
fuel, compressed natural gas, and electricity purchased from power 
plants. Emissions are defined as those emitted directly by the assets 
of the public transportation agency. 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants program. This program provides grants to 
urbanized areas and to states for public transportation capital 
projects and operating assistance for equipment and facilities in 
urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning.[Footnote 29] 
The program allocates funds based on a multitiered formula, which 
separates urban areas with populations under 200,000 from those with 
populations of 200,000 or more. Funds are first apportioned based on a 
formula provided in law to designated recipients (typically 
metropolitan planning organizations or a state or regional authority 
responsible for capital projects and for financing and directly 
providing public transportation). Designated recipients allocate the 
apportionment among eligible transit service providers in the 
urbanized area. Eligible uses of program funds include planning, 
design, and evaluation of transit projects and capital investments in 
bus-related activities, such as replacement, overhaul, and rebuilding 
of buses. 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. This program provides grant 
funding to reduce emissions from existing diesel engines through 
engine retrofits, rebuilds, and replacements; switching to cleaner 
fuels; and other strategies. The program offers funding through four 
subprograms: 

* the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program awards 
competitive grants for projects implementing EPA verified and 
certified diesel emissions reduction technologies, 

* the National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program awards 
competitive grants for projects that develop and evaluate emerging 
diesel emissions reduction technologies, 

* the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program awards competitive grants 
to establish low-cost revolving loans or other innovative financing 
programs that help fleets reduce diesel emissions, and: 

* the State Clean Diesel Grant Program allocates funds to 
participating states to implement grant and loan programs for clean 
diesel projects. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Tax Expenditures Related to Mobile Source Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Activities: 

Excise Tax Exemption for Idling Reduction Devices: 

This tax expenditure excludes certain idling reduction devices from 
the federal excise tax. Under federal excise tax law, heavy truck, 
trailer, and tractor parts sold separately from the vehicle generally 
are subject to a 12 percent retail tax. The Energy Improvement and 
Extension Act of 2008 excludes qualified idling reduction devices from 
the federal retail tax on vehicle parts. EPA, in consultation with the 
Secretaries for the DOT and DOE, maintains a list of devices approved 
for the tax exemption. An idle reduction device is generally a device 
or system that provides services, such as heat, air conditioning, or 
electricity, to the vehicle or equipment without the use of the main 
drive engine while the vehicle or equipment is temporarily parked or 
remains stationary, hence reducing unnecessary idling of the vehicle 
or equipment. No estimate of forgone federal tax revenue for this 
excise tax provision is available because the Department of the 
Treasury reports estimates only for income tax expenditures and does 
not report estimates for tax provisions that result in forgone excise 
tax only. 

Biodiesel and Small Agri-biodiesel Producer Tax Credits: 

This tax expenditure provides an income tax credit as well as an 
excise tax credit for the production and use of biodiesel.[Footnote 
30] The use of biodiesel instead of conventional diesel fuel 
significantly reduces particulate matter and hydrocarbon emissions. 
The biodiesel fuels income tax credit is the sum of three credits: (1) 
the biodiesel mixture credit, which provides $1 for each gallon of 
biodiesel and agri-biodiesel used by the taxpayer in the production of 
a qualified biodiesel mixture; (2) the biodiesel credit, which is $1 
per gallon for each gallon of unblended biodiesel and agri-biodiesel 
when used as a fuel or sold at retail; and (3) the small agri-
biodiesel producer credit, which is 10 cents per gallon for up to 15 
million gallons of agri-biodiesel produced by small producers. The 
biodiesel excise tax credit provides a tax credit of $1 for each 
gallon of biodiesel or agri-biodiesel a taxpayer used to produce a 
biodiesel mixture for sale or use in a trade or business. Renewable 
diesel fuel is eligible for both the income tax credit and excise tax 
credit at a rate of $1 per gallon. According to Department of the 
Treasury estimates, in fiscal year 2010, the biodiesel income tax 
credits resulted in $20 million in forgone federal income tax revenue, 
and the biodiesel excise tax credit resulted in $490 million in 
forgone federal excise tax revenue. 

Diesel Fuel Emulsion Tax Credit: 

A claim for credit or refund may be made for the nontaxable use of a 
diesel-water fuel emulsion--a mixture of diesel, water, and additives-
-and for undyed diesel fuel used to produce a diesel-water fuel 
emulsion. The presence of water in the emulsion reduces both nitrogen 
oxide and particulate matter emissions from the diesel fuel. The claim 
rate for nontaxable use of a diesel-water fuel emulsion taxed at 19.8 
cents per gallon is 19.7 cents (if exported, the claim rate is 19.8 
cents). The following are the nontaxable uses for a diesel-water fuel 
emulsion for which a credit or refund may be allowable to an ultimate 
purchaser: on a farm for farming purposes; off-highway business use; 
export; in a qualified local bus; in a school bus; other than as fuel 
in the propulsion engine of a train or diesel-powered highway vehicle, 
but not off-highway use; exclusive use by a qualified blood collector 
organization; in a highway vehicle owned by the United States that is 
not used on a highway; exclusive use by a nonprofit educational 
organization; exclusive use by a state, political subdivision of a 
state, or the District of Columbia; and in an aircraft or vehicle 
owned by an aircraft museum. No estimate of forgone federal tax 
revenue for this excise tax provision is available because the 
Department of the Treasury reports estimates only for income tax 
expenditures and does not report estimates for tax provisions that 
result in forgone excise tax only. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Strategic Goals and Establishment of Performance Measures 
Related to Programs That Fund Activities That Reduce Mobile Source 
Diesel Emissions: 

Agency: DOE; 

Strategic goal: To catalyze the timely, material, and efficient 
transformation of the nation's energy system and secure U.S. 
leadership in clean energy technologies; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Clean Cities program; 
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program; 
State Energy Program. 

Agency: DOT; Federal Aviation Administration; 

Strategic goal: To advance environmentally sustainable policies and 
investments that reduce carbon and other harmful emissions from 
transportation sources; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Strategic goal: To ensure the United States proactively maintains its 
critical transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Strategic goal: To improve public health and safety by reducing 
transportation-related fatalities and injuries; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Strategic goal: To promote transportation policies and investments 
that bring lasting and equitable economic benefits to the nation and 
its citizens; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Voluntary Airport Low Emissions program. 

Agency: DOT; Federal Highway Administration; 

Strategic goal: To advance environmentally sustainable policies and 
investments that reduce carbon and other harmful emissions from 
transportation sources; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program; 
Ferry Boat Discretionary program. 

Strategic goal: To ensure the United States proactively maintains its 
critical transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Ferry Boat Discretionary program. 

Strategic goal: To foster livable communities through place-based 
policies and programs that increase transportation choices and access 
to transportation services; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
program; 
Related programs: Ferry Boat Discretionary program. 

Strategic goal: To improve public health and safety by reducing 
transportation-related fatalities and injuries; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
program; 
Related programs: Ferry Boat Discretionary program. 

Strategic goal: To promote transportation policies and investments 
that bring lasting and equitable economic benefits to the nation and 
its citizens; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Ferry Boat Discretionary program. 

Agency: DOT; Federal Transit Administration; 

Strategic goal: To advance environmentally sustainable policies and 
investments that reduce carbon and other harmful emissions from 
transportation sources; 
Performance measure established: No; 
Related programs: Transit in Parks program. 

Strategic goal: To foster livable communities through place-based 
policies and programs that increase transportation choices and access 
to transportation services; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: 
Bus and Bus Facilities program; 
Clean Fuels Grant program; 
Transit in Parks program; 
Urbanized Area Formula Grants program. 

Strategic goal: To improve public health and safety by reducing 
transportation-related fatalities and injuries; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: 
Bus and Bus Facilities program; 
Clean Fuels Grant program; 
Transit in Parks program; 
Urbanized Area Formula Grants program. 

Strategic goal: To promote transportation policies and investments 
that bring lasting and equitable economic benefits to the nation and 
its citizens; 
Performance measure established: No; 
Related programs: 
Bus and Bus Facilities program; 
Clean Fuels Grant program; 
Transit in Parks program; 
Urbanized Area Formula Grants program. 

Agency: EPA; 

Strategic goal: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop 
adaptation strategies to address climate change, and protect and 
improve air quality; 
Performance measure established: Yes; 
Related programs: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE, DOT, and EPA documents. 

[End of table] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Office of Air and Radiation: 
Washington, D.C. 20460 

January 24, 2012: 

David C. Trimble: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Trimble: 

Thank you for providing the Environmental Protection Agency with the 
draft report entitled Diesel Pollution: Fragmented Federal Programs 
that Reduce Mobile Source Emissions Could Be Improved (0,40-12-260 for 
our review and comment. We appreciate the Government Accountability 
Office's examination of the federal programs that provide funding for 
activities that reduce diesel emissions, as reducing emissions from 
diesel engines is one of the most important air quality challenges 
facing the country. 

We appreciate that the draft report notes our program's ongoing 
efforts to collect information on the number of diesel engines we 
replace, retrofit and rebuild as well as information on the estimated 
tons of particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, carbon 
monoxide and hydrocarbon that these projects reduce. We also 
acknowledge the documented results that the DERA program has achieved 
to date. We continue to work to ensure that we are funding projects 
achieving significant and effective reductions in diesel emissions. 

We agree with the report's conclusion that the federal grant and loan 
programs identified should collaborate to a greater extent on their 
diesel emission reduction activities, to further strengthen the 
results achieved thus far, and to ensure that federal tax dollars are 
put to work in the most effective, efficient way possible. We will 
work with other Federal agencies to ensure we are working together 
nationwide to achieve significant reductions in diesel emissions from 
mobile sources. 

Again, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on 
this draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Karl Simon, Director: 
Transportation and Climate Division: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

January 26, 2012: 

Mr. Frank Rusco: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Rusco: 

This letter responds to the findings contained in the U.S. General 
Accountability Office (GAO) report, Diesel Pollution -Fragmented 
Federal Programs that Reduce Mobile Source Emissions Could Be Improved 
(GA0-12-261). Specifically, the report as written does not include 
important information and comments that were provided to GAO by the 
Department of Energy (DOE) in the course of compiling the report. This 
additional information would help to clarify critical differences 
between the Federal programs of interest, explain unusual or 
mitigating circumstances that resulted from the implementation of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and identify 
collaborative efforts or best practices that are already in place. 

Conclusions of the report state: 

* Collaboration among the 14 programs that fund activities that reduce 
mobile source diesel emissions is essential to efficiently and 
effectively reduce diesel emissions. 

The report recommends the following action: 

* For Federal funding that reduces diesel emissions, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, consistent with 
statutory obligations, establish a strategy for collaboration among 
their grant and loan programs which reduce mobile source diesel 
emissions. 

Although we concur with the above recommendation to strengthen 
collaboration among the three agencies, DOE does not concur with the 
characterizations within the report which indicate that: 

* DOE has a statutory responsibility for diesel emission reduction; 

* DOE does not currently collaborate with other Government agencies in 
the performance of its mission; and; 

* DOE shares redundant national goals with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). 

These characterizations are inaccurate as they relate to the DOE 
mission and strategy. The enclosure includes details and comments 
relating to each of these points. 

The DOE proactively collaborates with the DOT and EPA as well as other 
government agencies in order to leverage its efforts and effectively 
work in concert with policies and regulations established by other 
agencies to ensure the DOE goals can be achieved. 

The DOE looks forward to continuing to work with the GAO on helping the
Federal Government meet its energy goals. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Kathleen B. Hogan: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency: 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: 

Enclosure: 

[End of letter] 

Enclosure - DOE Written Comments (GAO-12-261): 

Introduction page, "Why GAO Did This Study", third sentence:
"Programs at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
provide funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions, such as 
retrofitting, rebuilding, or replacing existing diesel engines or 
vehicles." [See comment 1] 

Recommended Change: "The DOE provides funding for programs and 
projects that improve efficiency and reduce petroleum consumption, 
some of which have a secondary effect of diesel emission reduction." 

Introduction page, body paragraph 2, second sentence: The "DOE and EPA 
have established performance measures for the strategic goals related 
to their programs that reduce mobile source diesel emissions." [See 
comment 2] 

Recommended Change: "The DOE has performance goals for improvements in 
efficiency and petroleum reduction and does not have performance 
measures specific to mobile source diesel emission reduction." 

Introduction page, body paragraph 3, first sentence: "The programs 
that fund activities that reduce diesel emissions generally do not 
collaborate because of the differing purposes and goals of each 
program, according to senior DOE, DOT, and EPA officials." [See 
comment 3] 

Recommended Change: "The DOE collaborates with programs with respect 
to our primary goals of efficiency Improvement and petroleum 
reduction; as diesel emissions reduction is not a primary goal of the
Department, the DOE collaborates with other agencies only to the 
extent possible given our primary focus." 

Page 1, last Paragraph, First sentence: "Programs at the DOE, DOT, and 
EPA address mobile source diesel emissions by funding projects that, 
among other things, retrofit, rebuild, or replace, existing diesel 
engines or vehicles; install devices that reduce idling of diesel 
engines; and convert diesel engines and vehicles to use cleaner fuels, 
such as natural gas or propane. The existence of these programs at 
multiple agencies has raised questions about the potential for 
unnecessary duplication. We have previously reported that 
fragmentation and overlap among government programs can lead to such 
duplication. Fragmentation occurs when more than one Federal agency, 
or more than one organization within an agency, is involved in the 
same broad area of national need. Overlap occurs when multiple 
agencies and programs have similar goals, engage in similar
activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar 
beneficiaries. We have also reported that Federal programs 
contributing to the same or similar outcomes should closely coordinate 
to improve their overall effectiveness." [See comment 4] 

Recommended Change: "The DOE does not concur that there is 
fragmentation or overlap of programs per the definition provided in 
the paragraph noted above. The DOE does not have a quantifiable goal 
associated with diesel emission reduction." 

Page 7, Federal Funding for Activities that Reduce Diesel Emissions
Is Fragmented across 14 Programs, First and second and third 
sentences: "The remaining 13 programs focus on other goals or 
purposes, such as supporting energy efficiency projects or reducing 
petroleum use. Nevertheless, each of these programs allows or requires 
a portion of its funding to support activities that have the effect of 
reducing mobile source diesel emissions." [See comment 1] 

Recommended Change: "The remaining 13 programs focus on other goals or 
purposes, such as supporting energy efficiency projects or reducing 
petroleum use. These projects have a secondary effect of reducing 
mobile source diesel emissions." 

Page 14, second paragraph, third sentence: According to agency 
documents and officials, EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program 
collects performance information on the amount and type of diesel 
emissions reductions each project achieves; DOE's three programs and 
three of DOT's programs collect some performance information related 
to diesel emissions reductions; and the remaining seven DOT programs 
do not collect performance information related to diesel emissions. 
This variation in the amount of diesel-related performance information 
programs collect occurs partially because 13 of the 14 programs that 
fund these activities have purposes other than reducing diesel 
emissions, such as supporting energy efficiency projects or reducing 
petroleum use. However, without information on the results of the 
programs' activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions, the 
overall effectiveness of Federal grant and loan funding for activities 
that reduce diesel emissions cannot be determined. [See comment 5] 

Recommended Change: According to agency documents and officials, the 
EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program collects performance 
information on the amount and type of diesel emissions reductions each 
project achieves; The DOE does not quantitatively collect diesel 
emission reduction information, three of the DOT's programs collect 
some performance information related to diesel emissions reductions; 
and the remaining seven DOT programs do not collect performance 
information related to diesel emissions. This variation in the amount 
of diesel-related performance information programs collection occurs 
because programs that fund these activities have purposes other than 
reducing diesel emissions, such as supporting energy efficiency 
projects or reducing petroleum use. Therefore, the quantitative impact 
on diesel emission reductions is not being determined. [See comment 5] 

Page 16: Paragraph 2: The Federal programs that fund activities that 
have the effect of reducing mobile source diesel emissions generally 
do not collaborate. [See comment 3] 

Comment: The DOE does collaborate whenever possible (both internally 
and with other Federal agencies), but not solely on the basis of 
diesel emissions. The DOE's vehicle technology funding programs are 
focused on efforts that reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuels 
like diesel and gasoline. Projects are evaluated, documented, and 
tracked on the basis of petroleum reduction impact, use of alternative 
fuels, and energy efficiency. The DOE state and local energy 
efficiency and renewable energy funding programs provide grantees with 
great flexibility in project selection across a broad spectrum of 
technologies and sectors, and some may choose to engage in vehicle 
technology projects. Emissions reductions may or may not be a 
secondary or side benefit of these projects. It would be impractical 
and resource prohibitive to re-define and re-evaluate all DOE programs 
solely on the basis of diesel emissions. Examples of specific DOE 
collaborative efforts related to funding programs include utilizing 
technical merit reviewers from other agencies and program areas to 
evaluate funding proposals, interagency participation in annual 
project merit reviews, and even hosting employees from other agencies 
on work details. These ongoing efforts help to leverage program 
resources and effectively work in concert with policies and 
regulations established by other agencies to ensure the DOE goals can 
be achieved. 

Page 17: Paragraph 2: However, we have previously reported that, 
although Federal programs have been designed for different purposes or 
targeted for different population groups, coordination among programs 
with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and 
effectively meet national concerns. We reported that uncoordinated 
program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program 
customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the Federal effort. 
A focus on results as envisioned by the Government Performance and 
Results Act implies that Federal programs contributing to the same or 
similar results should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are 
consistent, and, as appropriate, program efforts are mutually 
reinforcing. [See comment 6] 

Comment: The DOE does not concur that the secondary effect of diesel 
emissions can be considered a "DOE Responsibility". The DOE has a 
primary goal of efficiency improvement and petroleum reduction and 
diesel emission reduction is not a primary goal of the department. 
[See comment 6] 

Page 19: Paragraph 3: For Federal funding that reduces diesel 
emissions, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, consistent with statutory obligations, establish a strategy 
for collaboration among their grant and loan programs in their 
activities that reduce mobile source diesel emissions. [See comment 3] 

Comment: The DOE collaborates internally and across Federal agencies 
to advance our primary goals of improving energy efficiency, deploying 
renewable sources of energy and reducing the use of petroleum through 
its grant and loan programs, but not solely on the basis of diesel 
emissions. We will continue work with all Department stakeholders via 
an operational and adaptable framework that leverages their best 
wisdom and works in concert with the policies and regulations 
established by other agencies. 

Other General Comments: 

Impact of ARRA implementation on the programs: The report narrative 
suggests that the time period for the study was selected for relevance 
to the implementation of new EPA emissions reduction regulations. The 
report should also acknowledge the ARRA impact on expansion of DOE 
program efforts during the reporting period. Funding directed to these 
programs under the ARRA during this period was extraordinary and 
unprecedented. (In the case of DOE's Clean Cities, funding was nearly 
100 times greater than typical funding levels for these kinds of 
grants during non-ARRA years). Funding for these activities since this 
period has reverted to previous levels. [See comment 7] 

The following are GAO's comments to the Department of Energy's letter 
dated January 26, 2012. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We agree that the DOE programs identified in this report fund 
projects that have a secondary effect of reducing diesel emissions. As 
our report states, these programs fund activities, such as 
retrofitting, rebuilding, or replacing existing diesel engines or 
vehicles, which have the effect of reducing diesel emissions. Our 
report also states that these programs generally focus on goals or 
purposes that do not directly relate to reducing diesel emissions. We 
did not modify our report based on this comment. 

2. Our report does not evaluate whether DOE programs have established 
performance measures specific to mobile source diesel emissions 
reductions. Rather, this report states that DOE has established 
performance measures for the agency's strategic goals that relate to 
its programs that fund diesel emissions reduction activities. We did 
not modify our report based on this comment. 

3. Our report recognizes that DOE, DOT, and EPA consult on broad 
issues and states that the programs at these agencies that fund diesel 
emissions reduction activities generally do not collaborate. We did 
not review any collaboration that occurs among programs other than the 
14 identified in our report or is not specifically related to diesel 
emissions reductions because this was outside the scope of our review. 
We did not modify our report based on this comment. 

4. We disagree with DOE's statement that there is not fragmentation or 
overlap among the 14 programs identified in our report. As our report 
states, fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency, or 
more than one organization within an agency, is involved in the same 
broad area of national need. We found that the 14 programs that fund 
activities that have the effect of reducing diesel emissions are 
involved in the same area of national need. Our report states that 
overlap occurs when multiple agencies and programs have similar goals, 
engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target 
similar beneficiaries. As our report shows, each of the 14 programs 
shares goals, activities, or beneficiaries with at least one other 
program. In addition, we agree with DOE's statement that it does not 
have a quantifiable goal associated with reducing diesel emissions. As 
we reported, DOE's 3 programs that fund diesel emissions reduction 
activities share one or more broad goals, such as reducing emissions, 
increasing energy efficiency, and reducing fuel use, with the other 11 
programs that fund these activities. We did not modify our report 
based on this comment. 

5. We revised our report to note that DOE does not quantitatively 
collect information on diesel emissions reductions. We also noted that 
the three DOE programs collect some information related to diesel 
emissions reductions. For example, our report states that DOE's Clean 
Cities program collects information on reductions in gasoline and 
diesel fuel use, and the agency's Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant and State Energy programs estimate emissions reductions 
that result from program activities. Further, we continue to believe 
that without information on the results of programs' activities that 
reduce mobile source emissions, the overall effectiveness of federal 
grant and loan funding for activities that reduce diesel emissions 
cannot be determined. 

6. We do not state that the secondary effect of reducing diesel 
emissions is a DOE responsibility. As our report shows, each of the 3 
DOE programs we identified as funding diesel emissions reduction 
activities has responsibilities related to those of the other 11 
programs within our review because they fund similar activities and 
have similar goals, including increasing energy efficiency and 
reducing fuel use. We continue to believe, as we state in our report, 
that coordination among programs with related responsibilities is 
essential to efficiently and effectively meet national concerns. 
Further, our report states that the DOE programs within our review 
focus on purposes other than reducing diesel emissions and lists the 
specific purpose for each DOE program. We did not modify our report 
based on this comment. 

7. We believe this report sufficiently acknowledges the impact of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on funding for 
activities that reduce diesel emissions. Our report states that the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $870 million of the 
$1.4 billion that DOE, DOT, and EPA programs provided for activities 
that reduced mobile source diesel emissions from fiscal years 2007 
through 2011. We did not modify our report based on this comment. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Transportation: 

U.S. Department of Transportation: 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation: 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE: 
Washington, DC 20590: 

January 25, 2012: 

Mr. David C. Trimble: 
Director, Natural Resources and the Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20458: 

Dear Mr. Trimble: 

Every day, the U.S. transportation system offers some of the most 
efficient capabilities in the world to move people and goods. U.S. 
transit systems alone now account for approximately 10 billion 
passenger trips per year. Most of these transit systems receive 
funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs 
included in this report. Although transit is widely recognized as an 
inherently environmentally positive mode of transportation, the 
specific goals and measures established under these programs differ 
from those of the GAO report. FTA's legislation calls for it to focus 
on developing and improving transit capabilities, facilitating area 
wide public transportation needed for economical and desirable 
community development, assisting in the financing of these systems, 
and helping to achieve national goals relating to mobility of the 
elderly, individuals with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged 
individuals. In contrast, the GAO draft report focused on programs 
across the Federal government that "may have the effect of" reducing 
emissions, even where such reductions do not constitute the program's 
"goal." The FTA's programs fall into this latter category and while 
its programs may contribute to Governmentwide efforts to reduce diesel 
emissions, it is not appropriate for FTA to establish quantifiable 
performance measures for diesel emissions reductions. 

FTA Is Focused on Fulfilling Statutory It's Mission: 

FTA explained its statutory mission during extensive meetings with GAO 
and provided detailed information relating to its programs, their 
operation, systems, goals, objectives, and results. It also made clear 
that none of its programs focus specifically on GAO's study mandate 
related to diesel emissions. As a result the GAO report is mistaken in 
describing FTA's programs as funding diesel emission reduction 
activities; they fund transit. While these programs fully comply with 
environmental requirements, and have the effect of contributing to 
reductions in diesel emissions, their mission is focused on 
facilitating public transportation. While the Department does have 
programs, particularly beyond those covered in the GAO report, with 
specific environmental goals, establishing quantifiable performance 
measures relating to the effect that transit bus purchases by states 
and localities may have on reducing diesel emissions is beyond our 
scope. 

GAO Report Offers No Conclusion on Diesel Emissions: 

The report asserts as its major finding that The Effectiveness of 
Federal Funding for Diesel Emissions Reductions Activities is 
Unknown." It attributes this finding to variation in the extent to 
which agencies have available performance measures for reducing diesel 
emissions. However, the primary measure of the effectiveness for 
Federal actions to reduce diesel emissions is the quality of the air 
we breathe, not the existence of program-specific performance 
measures. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data shows that 
between 1990 and 2008, fine particulate emissions have declined by 
more than 50 percent. During the same period, nitrogen oxides 
concentrations in the air were reduced by 35 percent. The GAO report 
could have made use of such national air quality data, combined with 
an analytical approach to assess the progress made and estimate the 
proportion of these reductions that could be ascribed to Federal 
action, rather than redirecting its attention to agencies use of 
strategic goals and performance measures. 

FTA Offered Data and Approach for Evaluating Transit Bus Emissions 
Reduction: 

FTA offered a reasonable method to estimate the contribution of 
replacement transit buses to the improvement in the Nation's air 
quality. During the time period covered by the GAO review, FTA 
provided data showing that nearly 30,000 new, cleaner-running transit 
buses were purchased within the 5 programs included in the report. As 
these newer, cleaner-running, more fuel-efficient buses displace older 
buses, fleets are emitting fewer diesel emissions. FTA's efforts to 
encourage the use of alternatively-fueled transit buses have also 
achieved considerable success. During the last 5 years, alternatively 
fueled buses contributed to an 8 percent reduction in diesel transit 
buses, eliminating another 3,600 diesel vehicles. It is not clear why 
the GAO report did not incorporate any of this information and instead 
focused on FTA performance measures. 

Incorporating quantifiable performance measures for FTA relating to 
overall reductions in diesel emissions from transit bus funding is 
beyond its statutory mandate and offers the potential to increase 
duplication across government. The Department operates in full 
compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act and sets 
meaningful and appropriate goals for its activities. It has identified 
strategic goals for environmental sustainability and has outcome 
focused performance measures that are appropriate for its programs and 
mission focus. For example, included in our draft strategic plan is a 
performance measure for further increasing the use of alternative fuel 
and hybrid vehicles in transit service. GAO's recommendation for FTA 
to develop quantifiable performance measures relating to the reports 
objective of diesel emissions reductions is best left to those 
organizations in government, such as EPA, with the appropriate mission 
and expertise. 

Evidence of Fragmented Programs Not Apparent: 

The evidence supporting the report's argument that Federal programs 
with the potential to reduce diesel emissions are fragmented is not 
apparent. While the report asserts programs are fragmented, this would 
imply that there are small, incomplete or broken parts strewn across 
the government; however, the report identified none of those 
attributes. Instead, it appears to have identified independent 
programs with varying objectives that in some cases include similar 
activities. Although transportation grantees may receive funding from 
other programmatic sources, with other goals, that demonstrates 
neither duplication nor flaws in programmatic structure across 
government. While the report describes these sometimes overlapping 
activities as duplication, it also makes clear that it could not 
determine whether this "duplication" was unnecessary or inappropriate. 

Collaboration among government agencies can be useful particularly 
under circumstances where interaction can result in improving 
programmatic efficiency and effectiveness. However, the report 
demonstrates no specific deficiency that has occurred due to the 
existing level of collaboration, nor does it offer evidence to support 
why establishing a strategy for collaboration among entities that fund 
activities that could reduce mobile source diesel emissions should be 
a priority use of Federal resources. Further, the report offers no 
convincing evidence of either fragmentation or the potential benefits 
to be achieved through many of the actions included in the second 
recommendation, such as identifying unnecessary duplication — the 
objective that GAO was unable to achieve with this report, and to 
"identify and leverage resources needed to support funding activities." 

DOT Remains Mission Focused: 

DOT programs are focused on moving people and goods safely and 
efficiently. Throughout the Department, programs are structured to 
comply with all applicable requirements including environmental 
requirements as established by law and regulation. Environmentally 
related strategic goals are established with measures appropriate for 
the Department and its programs. As we continue to refine our data-
driven, results-oriented approaches to program implementation, it is 
imperative that measures focus on primary mission objectives. The 
Department continues to take appropriate actions that will improve 
mobility in America and to do so in an environmentally sustainable 
manner. Further, the Department has the data sets necessary to 
determine whether programs are achieving key performance objectives.
This GAO report does not effectively demonstrate that its recommended 
actions will produce cost-effective investments appropriate for the 
agency that do not potentially duplicate efforts elsewhere in the 
government. 

We appreciate this opportunity to offer comments on this GAO product. 
Please contact Martin Gertel, Director of Audit Relations with any 
questions, or if we can provide further information. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Brodi Fontenot: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Michael Hix, Assistant 
Director; Jennifer Beveridge; Colleen Candrl; Elizabeth Curda; Cindy 
Gilbert; Kristin Hughes; Joah Iannotta; Terence Lam; Zina Merritt; Ray 
Sendejas; MaryLynn Sergent; Tina Sherman; Ben Shouse; Kiki 
Theodoropoulos; and Sam Wilson made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Nitrogen oxides are regulated pollutants commonly known as NOx 
that, among other things, contribute to the formation of ozone. 
Particulate matter is an ubiquitous form of air pollution commonly 
referred to as soot. 

[2] Nonroad engines are those used in machines, such as construction 
equipment, agricultural equipment, and airport service vehicles. Also, 
EPA does not maintain information on the number of mobile sources of 
diesel emissions built after 2007. 

[3] GAO, Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address 
Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-146] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
29, 1997). For more information on fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication in federal programs see GAO, Opportunities to Reduce 
Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and 
Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-146]. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 111-364 § 3(a)-(b). 124 Stat. 4060 (2011). 
Additionally, in this report, we use the term "diesel emissions" when 
referring to both diesel emissions and diesel fuel use. 

[6] Tax expenditures include exemptions and exclusions from taxation, 
deductions, credits, deferral of tax liability, and preferential tax 
rates. The revenue that the government forgoes in these instances may 
be viewed as spending channeled through the tax system. 

[7] The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 
2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011), amends the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 
107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

[8] These standards are expressed as concentration limits in the 
ambient air averaged over a specific period--such as 1 hour or 8 
hours--and compliance is determined through localized ground level 
monitoring. 

[9] Nondiesel mobile sources, industrial processes, and power plants, 
among other sources, generated the remaining nitrogen oxide emissions; 
fossil fuel combustion, dust, and agricultural activities, among other 
sources, generated the remaining particulate matter emissions. 

[10] EPA also sets standards for new or upgraded stationary sources of 
diesel emissions, such as engines used to generate electricity at 
power and manufacturing plants. In 2008, EPA estimated that more than 
900,000 stationary diesel engines were in operation. 

[11] Competitive grant programs award funds for specific projects or 
activities based on eligibility and selection criteria as established 
by law or regulation, or on an administrative basis. Formula grant 
programs allocate funds to states or their subdivisions in accordance 
with a distribution formula prescribed in law or administrative 
regulation. Grant recipients may then allocate these funds to specific 
projects based on program eligibility guidelines. 

[12] Under DOT's State Infrastructure Banks program, states may use 
allocated federal transportation funds to capitalize state 
infrastructure banks, which in turn provide loans and other nongrant 
financial assistance to eligible projects. 

[13] All dollar amounts in this report are in nominal dollars. 

[14] DOT's Federal Transit Administration was unable to provide this 
information for the Bus and Bus Facilities program; Clean Fuels Grant 
program; Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program, 
for which the Federal Transit Administration manages grant data; the 
Transit in Parks program; and the Urbanized Area Formula Grants 
program. According to agency officials, the agency does not track 
which grants fund projects that reduce diesel emissions, and agency 
officials said that they would have to perform a labor-intensive, time-
consuming review--diverting limited resources at the critical end of 
the fiscal year period--to estimate the amount of program funding that 
has reduced diesel emissions. Instead, the agency provided us with 
access to its grants database, from which we estimated the amount of 
funding provided for diesel emissions reduction projects for the Clean 
Fuels Grant, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and 
Transit in Parks programs, but we were unable to estimate the amount 
of funding provided through the Bus and Bus Facilities or Urbanized 
Area Formula Grants programs due to the time frame of our review. See 
appendix I for additional information. 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-146] and GAO, 
Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An 
Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18] 
(Washington, D.C.: February 1998). 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-146]. 

[17] See GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Needs to Take Additional 
Actions to Help Ensure Effective Implementation, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-77] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 
2011). 

[18] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18] 
and GAO, The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency 
Annual Performance Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-10.1.20] (Washington, D.C.: April 
1998). 

[19] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 
Stat. 327, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. 

[20] EPA calculated these emissions reduction figures in tons of 
emissions reduced over the lifetime of each project funded. Also, EPA 
collects information on emissions reductions but has not reported data 
more current than fiscal year 2008. 

[21] We have previously reported that, in general, agencies should 
focus their funding on areas of greatest need. See GAO, 21st Century 
Challenge: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2005). 

[22] GAO, The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 
Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-109] (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 
1997). 

[23] GAO, Managing For Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000). 

[24] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-146]. 

[26] DOT's Federal Highway Administration administers the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program, but DOT's Federal 
Transit Administration collects and maintains grant data for the 
program. 

[27] The published lists report federal income tax expenditures and 
also include information on excise tax revenue forgone for listed tax 
expenditures. The lists do not include estimates for tax provisions 
that result in forgone excise tax only. 

[28] See H.R. Rep. No. 112-284, at 305 (Conf. Rep.). 

[29] An urbanized area is an area with a population of 50,000 or more 
that is designated as such in the 2000 Census by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

[30] Biodiesel fuel is an alternative to petroleum-based 
transportation fuel. U.S. biodiesel is made from soybeans and other 
plant oils, such as cottonseed and canola; animal fats, such as beef 
tallow, pork lard, and poultry fat; and recycled cooking oils. 

[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.