NHTSA’s guideline on state motor vehicle inspection programs, included  in its Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs,  recommends that states should have a program for periodic inspection of  all registered vehicles to reduce the number of vehicles with existing or  potential conditions that may contribute to crashes or increase the  severity of crashes that do occur, and should require the owner to correct  such conditions. Impact of Safety Inspections on Vehicle Safety Is Unclear as Benefits and Costs Are Difficult to Quantify

		Officials in States with Vehicle Safety Inspection Programs Said Their Programs Enhance Vehicle Safety

According to officials in 15 states with existing vehicle safety inspection  programs whom we interviewed, these programs help improve the  condition of vehicles; these officials point to data on the number of failed  inspections as evidence of the safety benefit of these programs. For example, Pennsylvania officials provided 2014 data  showing that more than 529,000 vehicles (about 20 percent of the state’s  2.7-million registered vehicles) underwent repairs in order to pass  inspection after initially failing. However, this analysis does not provide sufficient   In both cases, crashes involving  evidence to conclude that inspection programs did not have an effect on  crash rates because additional factors—such as implementation or  increased enforcement of traffic safety laws—could influence crash rates. State Challenges Include Oversight and Paper-Based Data Systems

Officials in the 15 states we spoke with primarily cited oversight and  paper-based data systems as challenges they have faced when operating  their vehicle safety inspection programs. Eleven of 15 states cited oversight efforts as a challenge. Literature that we reviewed and other stakeholders whom we interviewed,  including representatives from safety groups, vehicle manufacturer  industry groups, and DOT officials, also cited challenges that states face  in operating their programs. Some states have taken action to address their challenges, including  implementing more stringent program rules, preparing manpower studies,  and developing electronic database systems. NHTSA Could Improve Communications with States

Officials in all 15 states with inspection programs that we spoke with told  us that additional guidance and information from NHTSA would help in  operating their programs. The example most frequently cited by  state officials was light-emitting diode (LED) brake lights. State officials in eight states with safety programs we interviewed also  said that additional information from NHTSA on new safety technologies  required by the agency’s safety standards for vehicle manufacturers  would help them in operating their inspection programs. These state  officials told us they generally track new vehicle safety standards  implemented by NHTSA, but it is not always clear to program officials  whether or how new standards might be incorporated into their inspection  programs. According to NHTSA officials, there are no NHTSA staff designated to  answer questions related to state inspection programs or disseminate  relevant information to program officials because agency resources are  currently focused on areas that have a greater impact on crash rates,  such as driver behavior. With no recent federal guidance, state officials have  implemented different criteria or chosen not to include new technologies  in their inspection programs, potentially reducing the safety benefits of  their inspection program. NHTSA’s decision to not devote significant  resources to state vehicle inspection programs is consistent with research  showing that vehicle component failures are a relatively minor contributor  to traffic crashes. Recommendation

To improve assistance to states in regard to the periodic motor vehicle  inspection guideline, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the  Administrator of NHTSA to establish and maintain a communication  channel with states to convey relevant information related to vehicle  inspections and respond to questions from state safety inspection  program officials. This report assesses: 1) what is known about the safety  benefits and costs of operating state vehicle safety inspection programs,  2) any challenges states have faced in operating these programs, and 3)  any actions NHTSA could take to assist states with these programs. To identify what is known about the costs and safety benefits of state  vehicle inspection programs, we conducted a literature search for studies  that analyzed relationships between safety inspections and outcomes,  such as crash rates, vehicle component failures, and vehicle fleet age. We analyzed this data to  determine the estimated number of total crashes with vehicle factors  nationwide as well as the specific vehicle component failures that were  reported, such as issues with brakes, tires, and steering. To determine challenges states faced in operating their inspection  programs and what actions, if any, NHTSA could take to assist states with  their vehicle safety inspection programs, we reviewed federal and state  policy and program documents related to inspection programs. We also  interviewed state officials in five of six jurisdictions (four states and the  District of Columbia) that eliminated their programs since 1990.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2013, an estimated 5.7-million vehicle crashes resulted in approximately 32,700 fatalities and over 2.3-million injuries. One of NHTSA's guidelines to help states optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs recommends that each state have a program to periodically inspect all registered vehicles to reduce the number of vehicles with conditions that may contribute to crashes or increase the severity of crashes.
GAO was asked to review these state programs and NHTSA's assistance to states. This report assesses: 1) what is known about the safety benefits and costs of operating state vehicle safety inspection programs, 2) challenges that states have faced in operating these programs, and 3) actions NHTSA could take to assist states with these programs. GAO analyzed NHTSA 2009—2013 data and state data for crash trends related to vehicle component failure; reviewed studies that analyzed relationships between safety inspections and outcomes; and interviewed officials in 15 states that have inspection programs. GAO also interviewed officials in 5 states that eliminated their programs since 1990, NHTSA officials, and representatives from safety groups and automotive industry groups.

What GAO Found

According to officials GAO interviewed from 15 state vehicle safety inspection programs, these programs enhance vehicle safety; however, the benefits and costs of such programs are difficult to quantify. State officials told GAO that inspections help identify vehicles with safety problems and result in repair or removal of unsafe vehicles from the roads. For example, Pennsylvania state data show that in 2014, more than 529,000 vehicles (about 20 percent of vehicles in the state) failed inspection and then underwent repairs to pass. Nationwide, however, estimates derived from data collected by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that vehicle component failure is a factor in about 2 to 7 percent of crashes. Given this relatively small percentage as well as other factors—such as implementation or increased enforcement of state traffic safety laws—that could influence crash rates, it is difficult to determine the effect of inspection programs based on crash data. Studies GAO reviewed and GAO's analysis of state data examined the effect of inspection programs on crash rates related to vehicle component failure, but showed no clear influence. Finally, many states do not directly track the costs of operating safety inspection programs because costs may be comingled with other inspection programs, such as emissions.
State safety inspection program officials GAO interviewed primarily cited the oversight of inspection activities and paper-based data systems as challenges they have faced in operating vehicle safety inspection programs. For example, officials in 11 of the 15 states with programs GAO interviewed cited oversight efforts as a challenge, including ensuring that private inspection stations were conducting inspections consistent with program requirements, and officials in 4 of the 15 states also said that paper-based data systems can hinder oversight efforts. To address challenges, some states have taken actions such as implementing more stringent program rules and exploring the development of electronic data systems. Other states have eliminated their inspection programs altogether.
Program officials in all 15 states said that additional information from NHTSA—for example, information related to new vehicle safety technologies—would help in operating their programs. However, there is no designated channel for communication between NHTSA and program officials. Several state officials noted that they would like more information on new technologies such as light-emitting diode (LED) brake lights. State officials also said that it is not clear whether or how to inspect new safety technologies, such as tire pressure monitoring systems, required by NHTSA for new vehicles. Without information, states have implemented different inspection pass-fail criteria or chosen not to include new technologies in their inspections, potentially reducing the safety benefit of their programs. NHTSA officials told GAO they have adopted a hands-off approach to state vehicle inspection programs because the agency devotes its resources primarily to areas that contribute more heavily to crashes, such as driver behavior. However, consistent with NHTSA's mission to assist states in implementing traffic safety programs, improving communication with state officials on vehicle safety issues could help these officials in operating their inspection programs.

What GAO Recommends

DOT should establish a communication channel with states to convey relevant information to state safety inspection officials and respond to their questions. DOT officials reviewed this report and agreed with GAO's recommendation.