Improving and Maintaining Federal-Aid Roads: Department of Transportation Action Needed

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-02-02.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                                                                             - IIllllllllllilIlIllllllllllllllllll

         The backbone         of the Nat-ion’s highway           trans-
         portation       network--the        Federal-aid     nighway
         systems, representing           an investment      of about
         $76 billion--is     deteriorating.     The States should
         be encouraged         to use Feaera! highway            funds
         on improverncnt            projec;s     to protect       these

         Although   responsible       fo; making    sure States
     .   properly  maintain      Federal highways,      the Fed-
         eral Highway      Administration       does not pro-
         mote uniform       proceciures    for field engineers
         to   use when appraising         State maintenance.
         Two things are needed:

                --Federally      prescribed     highway             main-
a-                tenance     standards     and guides        for      the

                --Criteria     for Highway       Administration
                  engineers      to use i;hert    inspec:ing    the
                  adequacy      of that maintenance.

                                                                                                   ,-   .                              .   zi

                                                                          .-                       ‘,                   ----II                  -4

              WMMUWTY       AND DECBNDMIC
                DEVELOIMENT     DlVfBlCm


                      The Honorable
                      The Secretary              of Transportation
                      Dear Mr.         Secretary:
                             We have surveyed        the Federal  Highway Administration’s
                      process for assuring         that the Federal-aid     hiqhways ate
                      being properly       maintained.     Our observations     and recom-
                      mendations,     iF implemented,      should help to insure that States
                      properly    maintain     highway projects    constructed    under Federal
                      highway legislation.
                              Our work was conducted           at the Niqhway Administration’s
                      headquarters,         Washington,      D.C*, its regional       and divisional
                      offices      responsiole     for assuring       proper maintenance         of
                      completed       Federal-aid     highway progests         in Georgia and
                      South Carolina,          and the highway departments           in these statec.
                      We reviewed        (1) applicable       Federal highway laws and regula-
                      tions,     (2) Highway kdministration            policies     and procedures
                      for inspecting         and reporting      on maintensnce       of Federal-aid
                      highways,       and (3) highway Administration             guidance to its
                      field    offices      for resurfacing,       rea:oration,      and rchobilftstbon
                      [RRR) hiqhway projects.             ‘tie also, interviewed       Hiqhwsy .%x:inis-
                      tration      and State highway officis.Ys           and reviewed      their   records
                      and reports.
                                We observed                a need to:
                                            --Encourage          States        to qive high priority       to RRR
                                               projects        in their          Federal hl??luay construction

                                            --Prescrioe         maintenance          stan3ards          and guides               for
                                               highways        and br idqes.
                                            --Ptcscr bbe csiterra       for           appraising            State    highway
                                               maintenance  activltiesc
                                            --issue   guidance Zor deternininq     overall                          quality
                                                1evcLs of State minteix3nce    efforts.

                                                                                                       ---   -

                              The Unite? States highway transportetion              network
                     fa comprbsad of 3.8 million              miles of highways,     of which
                     about 929pOO0 miles are on Federal-aid                systems.      Highway
                     Administration       statistics       show that 1.29 trillion
                     vehicle     miles were traveled          in 1974 on these highways,
                     with three-fourths          in the Federal.-aid      highways.      Federal,
                     State,     and Pocal Governments spent $7.07 billion                in
                     2975 to maintain        the network,        a $500 million,    8 percent,
                     fnsleeaae    over 1974.         Maintenance    and traffic    services
                     rs~re~ent      about one-fourth        of all highMay expenditures.
                            The Highway Act of 1976 clarified           State use of
                     Federal    construction      funds for betterment-type        work
                     on already     ,zonatructed     Federal-aid   roads and highways
                     other thar. Xnterstate.          This action,    confirming    Eighway
                     Rdministgatim        policy,    broadened the definition       of
                     conBtroction      in Title    23, ‘J.S*C.# to inciude       RRR-type
                     WOL   k.

                              The act also authorized     $175 million   for each of
                     fiscal     years 1978 and 1979 for RRR projects        on Inter-
                     state highways which have oeen in use for more than
                     5 years and are not toll        roads.   This action    represents
                     a major philosophical      change in Federal responsibility
                     for    the Intevstete  highways.
                     Respon5foilitfes         and defitiitions
                               Res$?on%ibility      under 23 U.S,C. 116 for maintaining
                     the kderal-aid            highways belongs         to State highway
                     dCptB?tXFRtS.          The Paw requires         the Secretary      of Trans-
                     pcrtntion        to notify     a State highway department              of any
                     fiighway project,          constructed       under Federal highway
                     legialatron,         which has not been properly             maintained.
                      Xf within       90 days after       receipt     of such a notice,        the
                     project      has not      Seen repaired,        the Secretary      is
                     tequdrod       tc withhold      aporoval      of all projects        in the
                     state.       TRe responsibility          to nake sure that the States
                     are pcovrding          proper maintenance          has been delegated        to
                     the Federal        iiighxay    Administrator.         Eis representative
                      tn tldcz-3 State --the division           administrator--annually
                     certifies        to headquarters        that the State is adequately
                     aaintaininq        the highways.


     I --   .. ..-                                                                                               I


                The building,    improving, and maintaining of highways
        is classified      into two general categories of work---
        construction     and maintenance.       Construction    is sub-
        divided into (1) construction          and reconstruction    and
        (2) betterments.        Betterments include such RRR work as
        resurfacing--placing        additional   pavement layers over
        existing    road or bridge deck surfaces to provide
        additional    strength or to improve serviceability,           and
        restoration     and rehabilitation      includes war'- that is
        required to return the road or bridge deck to a
        condition suitable foi placement of an additional
        pavement layer.        Maintenance is usually defined as
        the preservation       of the entire highway, including
        surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures,             and any
        traffic    control devices that are necessary for its
        safe and efficient       utilization.      While these terms
        generally are in use among States, there is consider-
        able variation       in meaning.
                State maintenance and RRR work will play a more
        important role in the future highway transportation
        picture for several reasons*         These include (1) a
        decline in new highway construction          programs due to
        the anticipated     completion of the Interstate         System
        and the need for upgrading Federal-aid highways not
        on the Interstate      System, (2) rising      traffic   volumes
        and more extensive traffic       services    that will    increase
        demands on maintenance operations,          and (3) Federal-aid
        highway surfaces,      including  bridge surfacesp are
        deteriorating     faster tnan anticioated.          While the
        States are faced with greater maintenance and RRR
        efforts,     they are having financial      problems and are
        cutting back highway maintenaxe           budgets and staffs.
        Deteriorating        highways
-              Federal-aid highway surfaces,          including bridge
        surfaces,      are deteriorating     faster   than the Highway
        Administration      had anticipated.        Recently, it reported
        that highways are wearing out !5p percent faster than
        they are being replaced.



I/       B-164497(3)

               The Department of Transportation’s     Office of Audits
         reported in July 1976 that, although the highways were
         generally well maintained,    it found a number of highway
         segments on the Interstate    System which appeared to be
         inadequately maintained.     These included:
               --Interstate    80 in Iowa (between State Route 25 and
     .             Stuart interchange)  had shoulder dropoffs as much
                  as 8 inches in certain areas.
               --Interstate    35 in Iowa (1 mile sou*h of New Virginia)
                  had transverse cracking from the shoulder edge to
                  the driving surface.
               --Interstate   90 in Washington (Spokane to the Idaho
                  State line) had continued longitudinal  and trans-
                  verse cracking for the entire 17-mile length.
         The Highway Administration,    recognizing the deterioration
         problem, intensified    its research efforts    to determine
         why highways have been deteriorating      so fast.    (See p* 10.)
         Statec.'   deteriorating   financial       condition
               Along with the deteriorating       condition of the high-
         waysI we found the States' highway financial        picture is
         also deteriorating       because recent highway revenues arc
         lower than had been projected.         As a result of energy
         conservation    efforts,    States are generating fewer fuel
         tax dollars than expected.        P&ile highway tax revenues
         have increased, they have not kept pace with inflation.
         The following    table compares the rate of highway revenue
         increases to the national inflation        rate for the two
         States we visited.


                                               innual         percent    Inflation
                                  Year           increase in            percent      rate
                 State          (nclte   a)   highway revenues             (note     b)

            Carolina              1976
                                  1975                  E                      ik3
                                  1974                  5.7                 10.0
            Georgia               1976                  3.4                    4.5
                                  1975                  6.4
                                  1974                  7.5                 10’:;

            g/   Revenue data for fiscal      years,  inflation rate for
                    calendar    years.
            h\   Figures    based on data from ASurvey of Current
                    i3usinessr”   U.S. DerDartment of Commerce, Bureau
                    of Economic Analysis,     September 1976.
                    To compensate for this reduction       in rate of revenue
            growth an3 loss of purchasing         powerp many States are
            cutting    back on highway budgets and staffing,           For
            example,     Georgia reduced its highway staff       20 percent,
            from 9.000 to 7,200 personnel;         Utah reduced its
            mainter.ante    budget by 20 percent;     Washington    cut
            $7.8 million      from its budget for routine      maintenance;
            and New York has only 5,200 maintenance          employees
            doing a job that officials       claim requires     7,730.
                     Further,     while Nation-wide        maintenance       expenditures
            have risen from $3.06 billion               in 1964 to $6.36 billion
            in 1974, the value of the dollar                 over that decade has
            decreased       50 percent.       In terms of comparative            purchasing
            power * only $3.18 billion            was scent for maintenance
            activities        in 1974.    Thus c only about 4 percent more
            maintenance         work was purchased        in 1974 than in 1964, even
            though the number of registered                 vehicles    increased
            52 percent”         vehicle  miles traveled         increased      52 percent,
            and the number of miles of highway increased                      by about
-           172,000.        In addition,      although     our highways are getting
            oider,     recent Federal       legislation       increased      the maximum
            allowable       weight for trucks         on Interztate       highways.


    I   -
                                                               . ~         .   _ _ . . ”            - - - -   -

                                                                                                              _   _---   .--
                                 _-0.                  -   -         _--               ._   .   .


The Highway Administration  has estimated an annual
maintenance expenditure increase of about $100 million
for the maintenance of all streets and highways due to
the heavier allowable truck weights.
        Although Highway Administration      officials   acknowledge
the deteriorating       condition of the Nation's highways,
Federal funds have never been withheld from a State for
inadequate or improper maintenance.          The Highway Adinin-
istration     has responsibility    for insuring proper main-
tenance of Federal-aid highway projects:           however, it has
not prescribed standards or guides for the States' use
in maintaining those highways, nor has it provided
criteria     for field engineers to use in determining the
adequacy of State maintenance.         Thus, there is little
uniformity      among field engineers when appraisinq the
adequacy of States' maintenance efforts,           and the division
adm'nistrator      mbst base his annual certification      that the
highways are properly maintained on the subjective            judg-
ments of many engineers who inspect in a variety of
Field   inspection   criteria
      The Highway Administration's Federal-Aid Highway
Program Manual (vol. 6, ch. 4, sec. 3, subset. 1) contains
the policy and procedures for appraising the adequacy of
maintenance and taking the necessary action to effect
compliance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 116.
       The manual instructs        the engineers to make sufficient
maintenance inspections         of completed highway projects
constructed    with Federal      funds to assure that the States
are fulfilling     the law's     maintenance requirements.     The
how, when, and where of         inspection is left to the dis-
cretion of the regional         and divisional   offices.
       Each division    performs an annual maintenance
inspection   program to determine whether or not the States
are meeting maintenance requiremeats of Federal highway
legislation.      Neither headquarters nor the field offices



have prescribed    any criteria     for these engineers   to
apply in making the determination         that highways are
properly  maintained.      As a result,    each engineer
must rely   on his subjective     judgment when evaluating
the adequacy of that maintenance,
        Further    comglicating    the engineers’    job is the
fact that the Highway administration            has not prescribed
any standards       or guides to the States for required
maintenance       work.    But, they have preacritxd      standards,
specifications,         and guides to the States for the design
of Federal-aid        highways.    In lieu of Federal maintenance
standards,      the Eighway Administration        has encouraged
States     to use the DAASHTO1/ Maintenance         Manualw in
addition     to any State-established       standards.
      There is little        uniformity     in the procedures           field
engineers   use to appraise          State maintenance       efforts.
For example,      in South Carolina,        highway design features
and construction       practices      were insoected      to identify
items for improvements,           thereby !xDing      to reduce future
maintenance     costs;    in Ohio, an engineer          conducted a
maintenance     inspection      of selected     high-accident         locations
and road segments;        and in South Dakota, an engineer                  con-
ducted a maintenance         review by merely driving           over various
          The Highway Administration          is planning     to prepare a
field       2ngineets’    inspection    manual to use in conjunction
with      the “AMHTO Maintenance          Wanual. u Highway Administra-
tion      officials    anticipate    the inspection       guidelines    will
defir:e       various  conditions    that occur in highway mainte-
nanzc      work# show prooasle       cause of deficiencies          and recomn-
mend      necessary    corrective    actions.
Division    3dministrstsr’s         annual
maintenance    certificatron
       After the division     completes  its annual mafntenanco
inspection   program, the division      administrator      submits
to headquarters    an annual maintenance      report    certifying
that all Federal-aid      highway sections    inseacted      in the
State were found to be in proper zorldition           of maintenance.

&/ American !lssociation        of     State   Highway    and
   Transportation     Officials.

        Highway Administration’s            guidance to the diu’i;ion
administrator         o concerning     improper or unsatisfactory
maintenance         (1) cautions     about the serious     consequences
of failing       to certify      that all Federal-aid      highways are
properly      maintained,       (2) suggests assurance       that the
unsatisfactory          maintenencs     is not due to factors      or
conditions        “beyond maintenance,”         and (3) suggests every
reasonable       effort    be made to secure corrective
action      before submitting        a recommendation     for official
notification         of unsatisfactory       aaintenance.
      The manual      further     states:
      =lGhen the Division       Engineer      (administrator        ) has
      determined      that a completed        Federal-aid       project
      is not being properly           maintained,     and the
      deficiency      is of sufficient        magnitude      to warrant
      the withholding        of approval      of further       Federal-
      aid projects,        he shall    submit to the Office            of
      Highway OperatirJns,        through the regional            office,
      his recommendations          for issuing     an official
      notification       to the State.***         Further      aclion     will
      be taken, or directed           by the Federal       Eighway
In the past, divisions    have issued oral and written
warnings   to some State hiqhwa;* deoartnents      to obtain
corrective   action.   The Highway Akninistration,        however,
has never seen the need to issue an official         notification.
         Since the Highway Administration              has not established
any criteria         for inspecting     engineers,      the division        admin-
istrator       must base the annual certification               on the combined
subjective        judgments of many engineers           who inspect       in a
variety      of ways,      Althouqh    the overall      quality     of satis-
factory      maintenance      could vary from adequate to excellent,
the division         administrators     do not determine         the overall
quality      level     of States’   highway maintenance          efforts.
According       to highway Administration          official=,       determining
specific       overall    State maintenance      levels       would be difficult


and could result       in problems because of a tendency to
make comparisons       among States and this would create
more administrative       work and tedeape.
       Before the 1976 Highway Act, the Highway Administra-
tion had a policy       that included    betterment-type        work
(RRR) in the definition        of construction       or reconstruction
for federally      aided highway projects        other than the Pnter-
state System.       The States make the decision           as to how zfzuch
of their    Federal    funds will    be allocated     for RRR-type work
and how much will       be used for new construction.            In
addition,     the States make the surveys and plans,             award the
contracts,      and supervise    the construction       after   approval
from and in consultation         with the Highway Administration.
        In recent years, the States have allocated               about
10 percent     of their     Federal funds to RRR-tfle         projects.
Xn 1974 the states spent about $90 million                 of $1.1 billion
of Federal money for these types of projects.                   The re-
surfacing     expenditures     increased    in 1975 to about $222
million    out of a total      construction      expenditure     of about
$1.7 billion.        Despite this increasing         ltvel   of expenditures
for highway resurfacing          and substantial       maintenance      ex-
penditures     as discussed      earlier,   the highways are deteriora-
ting faster      than expected.
        Responding to the Righway Act of 1976 concerning                     the use
of Federal highway funds for RRR projects,                    Highway Administra-
tion headquarters           provided    interim     guidance to its field
offices     on June 28, 1976, to be used until                development     and
issuance      of formal instructions.              The notice    states   that RRR
projects      "apply to improvements            on main roads, shoulders,
ramps, frontage         roads 2nd oridge decks and incidental                work
connected       therewith."        Referring     to State maintenance
responsibility,          it states:
       "RRR projects     are not intended      to include     maintenance
       ty?e work such as work primarily            for rejuvenation     or
       protection     of existing    surfaces;    resurfacing     of less
       than 3/d inch minimum thickness           or of short length;
       Fatching    and repair     of minor failures;       and underseal-
       ing of concrete      slabs other than essential         as a part
       of restoration      for resurfacing.=

           _-_         --     ..-                                          ----


The guidelines,   despite the need as evidenced by the rapid
deterio:ation   of the highways, do not instruct  field person-
nel to encourage States to include RRR projects when States
are formulating   their annual Federal-aid highway construction
        Because the highways, representing       a total Federal
investment of about $76 billion         since 1956, are deteriorating
faster than they are being replaced, we asked Highway Admin-
istration    officials     why the guidelines did not contain some
instructions      for encouraging States to give RRR projects a
high priority.         We were told that this would place another
administrative       burden on field offices,    we were also told
that States have the right to decide on specific          highway
projects and, Lince the RRR needs are great, special
encouragement c, State RRR projects          is not necessary.

      Faced with problems of highways deteriorating            faster
than they can be reglaced and lower than anticipated              State
highway revenue growth rates, the Highway Adminlstration
has taken some actions to intensify         research efforts      into
the highway deterioration       problem.    In July 1976 the High-
way Administration    initiated     a national   survey to determine
the principal    causes of the construction       quality problem
that has developed regarding the deteriorating            highway
pavements and bridge decks.         The survey covers (1) recently
completed projects,     (2) ongoing construction       projects,     and
 (3) current construction      project staffing    practices     for
inspection and testing activities.
      When completed, the survey should provide data to allow
an assessment of the contributing   factors to the pavement
deterioration  problem and identify  areas of need.
      The Highway Administration's    research activities      in
maintenance-related    areas have beerr generally fragmented
and unorganized and are considered to have a relatively
low research priority.      However, one area, maintenance
management, was researched in depth.       The result,    according
to the Highway Administration,     has been cost reductions in
the millions   of dollars and increased quantity and quality
of maintenance activities.



          The=Highway Administration,   recognizing the increased
    importance of maintenance in future highway transportation,
    established  an organized research attack on maintenance
    problems affecting  the State highway departments with the
    objectives  of improving management, augmenting the use of
    resources, and increasing efficiency    and safety in maintain-
    ing the highways.
         In addition to the maintenance areas, the Highway
    Administration  is conducting research projects to improve
    highway pavements, and thereby, reduce overall maintenance
    and RRR costs.    Current projects include:
         --Developing a system to evaluate pavement structure
            and methods of predicting  remaining service life
            and rehabilitation  needs.
         --Establishing    new methods for   the design and
            construction   of overlays.
         --Determining    the effects of weight and axle
            configuration    on pavement performance.
         --Upgrading conventional pavement designs to approach
            "zero maintenance'$ conditions.
           The highway transportation    network is a key element
    in the transportation    of the Nation's goods and services
    and, therefore,    is essential   to a sound and healthy
    national economy. The backbone of this network is the
    Federal-aid    highway system which represents an investment
    of about $76 billion    since 1956. Responsibility     for the
    maintenance of the system has been left with the individual
    States while much of the construction       capital has been
    furnished by the Federal Government.
           Recently, mainly due to a reduction In the rate of
-   highway revenue growth and loss of purchasing power, many
    States are faced with a deteriorating     financial picture.
    As a result,    they have reduced both their budgets and
    staffing   in the highway maintenance area.

                        ..--      --.         --


                  The highways    are now deteriorating    50 percent faster
             than they are being replaced.       Segments of the Interstate
             highway system appear      to have been inadequately   maintained.
             We believe   the deterioration          of the    highway system will
             continue   unless the revenue         situation      improves or the
             States increase the past percentage               of highway construction
i            funds used to improve the highways.
                    The Federal-aid     highway system is essential     to the
I-           Nation and should be fully protected through maintenance
             and improvements.       Although the States have been spending
             abod    10 percent of their Federal funds for resurfacing
             improvement-type projects in recent yearsl the highways
             are continuing      to deteriorate    faster than they can be
             replaced.     The Highway Administration        should rake a
             substantial    effort    to halt the deterioration     of the high-
             ways. We also recognize that the States are in the best
             position    to set priorities      for their highway expenditures.
             Therefore# we believe the States should be encouraged to
             give a high priority       to RRR projects    in their Federal high-
             way construction      programs.
                     The States are required by law to provide adequate
             maintenance to the Federal-aid highways.         However, the
             Highway Administration     has not prescribed any maintenance
             standards or guides for the States to use. Without High-
             way Administration     prescribed standards and guides, the
             States do nr,s know what is required to comply with Federal
             highway maintenance legislation.       In addition,   the Admin-
             istration’s     field engineers must rely on subjective     judg-
             ment when appraising the States' maintenance activities,
             Standards and guides for attaining      good highway and bridge
             maintenance would assist the States in determining what
             maintenance is required.
                   Nhile the adoption of maintenance guidelines will go
             a long way towards insuring adequate and uniform mainten-
!        *   ance on the Federal-aid highways, it will not bring more
!            uniformity   to the Highway Administration's      inssection
             procedures.    The field engineers' maintenance inspection
             manual which the Highway administration       is planning to
             issue in the future will be a positive       step forward.   The
             manual should include criteria    for field engineers to use
             in evaluating the adequacy of the States'        maintenance

                                            .   .                  .   ~   -..
                                                                           - _ __


efforts.   Without such criteria        the inspectors will still
have to rely on their individual          subjective  judgments.
       Furthermore, since the Big!lway Administration         has not
established     any criteria     for the inspecting engineer, the
division     administrator,     when annually certifying   that all
Federal-aid highway sections inspected in the State were
properly maintained, must base his certification           on the
combined subjective         judgments of many engineers who inspect
in a variety of ways. Thus, the division administrator
cannot determine, in the annual certificationr           an overall
quality    level of the State's maintenance effort.
        Since the overall quality of satisfactory     maintenance
could vary from barely adequate to excellent,        and in view
of the deteriorating      highways, we believe it would be
beneficial    to know the trend of each State's maintenance
efforts.     Although not required by Federal highway
legislation,     we believe this information   would allow the
Bighway Administration       to compare the maintenance effort
of an individual     State on a year-to-year   basis" and ;.ssist
the Highway Administration       in its endeavors to make sure
that each State maintains its Federal-aid highway projects.
      We recommend that    you:
      --Encourage States to give a high priority    to RRR
         projects in their Federal highway construction
     We recommend that     you require     the Federal   Highway
Administrator to:
      --?rescribe  standards and guides for attaining  good
         highway and bridge maintenance from the States.
      --Include    in the planned engineers' maintenance
         inspection manual criteria     for appraising the
         adequacy of individual    State maintenance activities.
      --Provide guidance to division    administrators which
         would allow a year-to-year  comparison of the quality
         of a State's maintenance efforts   during the annual
         certification process.

                               _ -- .



        We discussed the report contents with Highway Admin-
istration     officials      and considered their views in preparing
this report.        The officials     agreed that maintenance guide-
lines and inspection criteria           would be beneficial.      How-
ever, they disagreed with the need to encourage States to
give a high priority           to RRR projects in their Federal high-
way construction          programs.   The officials   were concerned
about infringing         on the States' right to select specific
hi._rhway projects and thought that encouraging States to
give "appropriate"          priority  to RRR projects   in their high-
way programs would be sufficient.              However, the guidance
to the Federal highway field offices             has not instructed
them to provide any kind of encouragement to the States
in establishing         the priority   of RRR work.
      We agree the States have a right to select individual
highway projects.     However, in view of the deteriorating
condition of the Nation's highways and the reduced State
ilighway staffs and budgets, we believe that the States
should be cxouraged to give a high Driority       to RRR type
projects  i,T *- ,ir Federal highway construction   programs.
        The officials    also disagreed with the need for
determining overall quality levels of State maintenance
efforts.     They were concerned that such determination
would be used to compare maintenance efforts         among the
states.     Our intent,     however, is to enable the Highway
Adminiskration       to compare an individual  State's mainte-
nance effort      on a year-to-year    basis. Such comDarisona
would show the quality trend of that State's maintenance
      As you know, section 236 of the Legislative    i?eorgani-
zation Act of 1970 requires the head of a Federal agency
to submit a written    statement on actions taken on our
recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on
Government Operations no later than 60 days after the
date of the report and to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations   with the agencyfs first   request for


           appropriaSions   made more than 60 days after     the date of
           the report.    he appreciate    the cooperation received    during
           our survey and woul.d like    to be informed   of any actions
           taken on our recommendations.
                                           Sincerely   yours   t

                                           Henry Eschwege



    , I-