Regulations also require carriers to conduct comprehensive  inspections of their vehicles annually. FMCSA uses the data on violations submitted by inspectors to rank  carriers’ relative safety performance in seven categories and assign  carriers to a percentile in each. While Potential Safety Impact of a Self- Reporting System Is Difficult to Determine, FMCSA and Selected Stakeholders Suggested Safety Benefits Are Unlikely

		Identifying Potential Safety Impact of a System for Self-Reporting Equipment Problems Is Challenging

One of the challenges in assessing the safety impact of a potential  system for self-reporting equipment problems is its hypothetical nature. We assumed that a self-reporting  system would: apply only to problems identified during a driver’s day, that is between  the pre-trip inspection and the end of the day when the driver vehicle  inspection report is completed; not apply to equipment problems that would result in out-of-service  require drivers to report equipment problems and repairs through a  telephone hotline or Internet website or other electronic platform;  require repairs to be made before the beginning of the next day on  duty (e.g., within a day of when the problem was reported, if the driver  ended his trip that evening and planned another trip the following  day);  still result in a carrier receiving a violation for the equipment problem if  pulled over for a roadside inspection, but once a self-reported  equipment problem was repaired within the requisite time frame and  FMCSA was so notified, FMCSA would exclude the violation from the  carrier’s relative safety ranking (i.e., BASIC percentile for vehicle  maintenance); and not prompt FMCSA to take action if a carrier or driver self-reported an  equipment problem, but never received a violation for that equipment  problem. 2. Representatives from five of six industry and safety associations we  interviewed said they would be unlikely to support a self-reporting system  as outlined above. Most Carriers and Drivers Anticipated No Significant Safety Benefits of a Self- Reporting System, and FMCSA and Other Stakeholders Said It May Negatively Impact Safety

To impact safety, a self-reporting system would also have to prompt  drivers and carriers to change the way they identify and repair equipment  problems, yet the majority of carriers and drivers we interviewed said the  system would not change, for example, how quickly they made repairs. For example, three drivers thought a self-reporting  system could potentially yield some safety benefits if it incentivized  drivers to do more thorough pre-trip or en route inspections. Representatives from safety  associations said that carriers and drivers might delay making repairs  until the end of any permitted time period or might engage in distracted  driving while typing or calling in an en route equipment problem on their  cell phones. FMCSA Has the Statutory and Regulatory Capability to Establish a Self- Reporting System, but FMCSA and System Users May Face Challenges, and Costs are Unknown

		We Did Not Identify Any Statutory or Regulatory Barriers to Establishing a System for Self-Reporting Equipment Problems

Neither we nor FMCSA identified any statutory or regulatory barriers to  establishing a system for self-reporting equipment problems. Creating a self-reporting  system could place new demands on FMCSA’s information technology  resources. Developing a self-reporting system could further  delay these software improvements. If the  system were a web application, drivers would need smartphones to report  an equipment problem, but some drivers may not have one. Carriers or drivers could also face challenges accurately entering required  information. Additionally, drivers would need to identify the violation  that most closely matched their equipment problem, out of more than 300  potential vehicle maintenance violations. While we cannot estimate costs for the type of self-reporting system  described in this report with any degree of confidence, FMCSA broadly  estimated that a self-reporting system would cost between $5 and $10  million to establish and operate for the first year. DOT  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2015, more than 4,000 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks. To identify carriers with the highest crash risk, FMCSA uses information from roadside inspections and crashes to rank each carrier's safety performance relative to other carriers in seven categories, including one on vehicle maintenance. Some stakeholders have proposed a system for carriers or their drivers to self-report en route vehicle equipment problems to FMCSA. Reported equipment problems that were repaired within a certain time period would not affect the carrier's relative ranking, potentially incentivizing carriers to make repairs more quickly.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act included a provision for GAO to examine the cost and feasibility of establishing a system for carriers or drivers to self-report vehicle equipment problems to FMCSA. This report examines (1) the potential safety impacts of a self-reporting system and (2) factors that could affect its feasibility and cost.
GAO reviewed relevant regulations, information on other existing DOT self-reporting systems, and prior related GAO work. GAO also interviewed a non-generalizable sample of representatives from six industry and safety associations, six carriers, and six drivers about this potential system for self-reporting equipment problems. GAO selected carriers to include those with diverse fleet sizes and average distances traveled, and drivers from six additional carriers.
DOT provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Establishing a system that would provide incentives for trucking companies to self-report equipment problems may not necessarily yield safety benefits. Most stakeholders GAO interviewed—including selected carriers and drivers—thought a self-reporting system would be unlikely to produce safety benefits, stating that it would not incentivize quicker repairs. If repairs are not made more quickly, there would be no positive impact on safety. Three drivers, however, thought a self-reporting system could yield some safety benefits if it incentivized drivers to do more thorough inspections of their vehicles. Officials from industry groups and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) noted that a self-reporting system could negatively impact safety, such as by encouraging distracted driving if drivers report equipment problems on their cell phones while driving. Moreover, estimating the potential safety impacts of such a system requires information that is not currently available, such as how equipment problems that would be permitted to be self-reported are related to crashes.
Example of a Driver Receiving a Violation for a Previously Identified Equipment Problem under Current System and under a Self-Reporting One
FMCSA has the statutory and regulatory authority to establish a system for self-reporting equipment problems, and technology exists to create it, but its costs are unknown. Also, establishing such a system could pose challenges for FMCSA, carriers, and drivers. For example, developing a new system could delay efforts FMCSA has under way to improve its information technology, and carriers or drivers may have difficulty selecting their specific equipment problem from the more than 300 potential vehicle maintenance violations. Further, without information on key design features of a self-reporting system, such as whether reporting would be through a telephone hotline or a web-application, it is not possible to estimate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. FMCSA developed a rough estimate that a self-reporting system would cost between $5 and $10 million to establish and operate for the first year.