_ ..I __.__._. ^... _.- -- GAO ,_ ,_ ._ . .._-__.---.-.._ ...^. ..-.---- .lll111’ I!)!)() TtiNSPORTATION - INFRASTRUCTURE A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws 14169 _I-_- __-.-- __ --. . .._._ .._. . ..-_ --. _.. _..-- ^_... - _.C. . ..---I_. _“.,“_ .._ ._” .,. ,_-_. ..l.l ._-. _.~_ . ..-._ --._ -- .-- r;/\c 1: ttt ‘1:1)-w- t 57 United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20648 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-239489 June 27,199O The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick, Chairman The Honorable John H. Chafee, Ranking Minority Member Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan, Chairman The Honorable Steve Symms, Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate In the Surface Transportation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Congress authorized the Combined Road Plan-a block grant demon- stration project designed to test the feasibility of giving states more flex- ibility to administer highway funds. The demonstration not only gives states more latitude in making funding decisions, but allows states to perform certain administrative functions such as approving design exceptions and performing final project inspections. In the 199 1 reauthorization of the Highway Act, it is possible that Congress may look for ways to provide states with even greater flexibility in adminis- tering federal highway funds. In February 1989 the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works requested that we compare federal and state prevailing wage, environmental protection, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, and highway design laws to determine whether the protections afforded by state laws in these areas are equivalent to the protections afforded by federal laws. This information could assist the Congress in determining whether states could assume more responsibility for the federal highway program in these areas. Traditionally, states must comply with these and other federal laws as a precondition for obtaining federal highway funds. If compliance with these requirements were to be waived, states might be permitted to administer federal highway funds according to whichever state laws or policies the individual states feel are appropriate. Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws /’ B-239489 The laws targeted for this review included Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws, the &atianal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Disadvantaged Bus- iness Enterprise laws, and highway design laws. Davis-Bacon ensures that laborers on public works projects are paid commensurately with prevailing wage rates in the same geographic area for similar work. NEPA requires that adverse environmental impacts of a project be assessed prior to the project’s construction. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise laws require that qualifying disadvantaged business enterprises receive a certain percentage of all public works contracts, and highway design laws provide guidance for ensuring highway safety and durability. As requested, we reviewed the laws of the five states participating in the Combined Road Plan-California, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. While the prevailing wage laws of the five states are generally compa- Results in Brief rable to the federal Davis-Bacon Act, the states’ environmental, minority-contracting, and highway design statutes vary in their degree of comparability to their federal counterparts1 Although not identical in content to the federal Davis-Bacon Act, the state prevailing wage laws provide essentially similar protections to laborers on public works projects. While California, Minnesota, and New York have environ- mental protection laws that match or exceed the requirements contained in NEPA, neither Rhode Island nor Texas has statutes designed to afford similar protections. All of the states we reviewed have laws that, like their federal counterparts, establish disadvantaged business contracting programs, but the laws differ somewhat. For example, the federal law requires that 10 percent of all surface transportation contracts be awarded to disadvantaged business enterprises; states’ goals range from less than 4 percent (Minnesota’s) to 20 percent (California’s). Both fed- eral and state statutes regarding highway design are nonspecific and vary significantly in scope and content. According to state and federal highway officials, differences between state and federal laws in some areas are mitigated by regulations, administrative policies, case law, and operating procedures that are comparable to the federal laws. For instance, although Texas statutes do not contain an environmental reporting process similar to that required under the federal NEPA, state transportation officials report that the ’ For the purposes of this report, the term “law” refers to statutes that have been enacted through the federal or state legislative process. It does not encompass regulations, administrative policies, or case law, except as noted. Nor does this review assesscompliance with these laws. Page 2 GAO/RCED-80-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws I Il.239469 Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation administers an environmental program comparable to NEPA. In the area of minority contracting, although neither New York nor Texas has established a par- ticipation goal at the statute level, officials in both states say that goals established in administrative guidance meet or exceed the federal statu- tory goal. Although highway design statutes at the federal and state levels are largely incomparable, both federal and state highway officials say that the administrative guidelines they use as their operative con- trol over highway design are nearly identical. Where states have afforded comparable protections to state laborers, minority contractors, the environment, and highway safety, an implica- tion exists that federal and state governments attach similar values to these concerns. However, other indicators, including courts’ interpreta- tions of the laws, administrative guidance, and states’ compliance with the statutes, must be considered in determining whether the protections afforded by the federal and state governments are equivalent. Addition- ally, the presence of state laws or administrative guidance similar to the federal requirements does not in itself guarantee that states would retain or enforce the laws if federal requirements were lifted. The federal Davis-Bacon Act requires that employees on federal public State Laws on works projects receive pay equal to the wages prevailing for similar Prevailing Wages classes of laborers in that geographic region. All five states have laws Compare Favorably that parallel this act, with minor variations, The federal act and state laws differ slightly on their thresholds of applicability. The federal act With the Federal applies to all contracts greater than $2,000. Rhode Island sets a floor of Davis-Bacon Act $1,000, and both New York and Texas establish no minimum contract value for when the laws apply. California’s threshold depends on the type of project-maintenance or construction. Minnesota’s threshold depends on the number of trades or occupations required to complete a project. According to state officials in New York and Texas, there is no substantive difference in the federal and state thresholds, because the value of most highway contracts -federal or state-significantly exceeds the minimum thresholds. A detailed comparison of other provi- sions of the Davis-Bacon Act with relevant state laws appears in appendix I. Page 3 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws a-239489 requires that the environmental impacts of a public works project Three of Five States NEPA be assessed prior to its initiation. Since the enactment of NEPA in 1969, a Have Environmental number of states have adopted corresponding legislation to monitor and Acts That Mirror the regulate potentially adverse environmental impacts of state projects. Three of the five states reviewed have enacted such legislation. The , National statutes in Minnesota and New York are slightly more extensive than Environmental Policy the federal law and in California are significantly more so. Minnesota Act and New York laws, for example, surpass federal requirements by man- dating that a report or worksheet be prepared as a decision tool for determining the need for a full environmental impact report. California statutes go further to provide specific criteria to be used in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment. All three states report that in most areas where the state laws appear to exceed the requirements of NEPA, the state laws have incorporated the requirements established in federal regulations. Rhode Island and Texas have no environmental acts that parallel NEPA, although the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation has established administrative procedures for evaluating environmental impacts of state projects, According to Texas state officials, the proce- dures are identical to those legislatively required by NEPA. Rhode Island officials state that the small size of their state highway program does not justify the need for a state act. The officials add that because most projects funded solely by the state are small in magnitude-such as resurfacing roads-they would be unlikely to adversely affect the envi- ronment. Appendix II discusses further the similarities and differences between the federal and state environmental laws. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of States’ Minority 1982 requires that not less than 10 percent of all surface transportation Contracting Laws contracts be awarded to small businesses owned and operated by Vary in Their socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. All of the states reviewed have legislatively established disadvantaged business con- Comparability to tracting programs intended to encourage disadvantaged business partic- Federal Disadvantaged ipation in public works contracts, but the programs differ somewhat in Business Enterprise their content. The most significant differences are in the percentage goals set for minority business participation and the definitions of quali- Laws fying participants. Rhode Island’s statutes establish a lo-percent con- tracting goal-identical to the federal law. Both New York’s and Texas’ laws do not establish goals in the statutes, deferring, rather, the respon- sibility for setting appropriate contracting goals to state agencies. Cali- fornia’s laws establish separate goals for participation by women and Page 4 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws minorities while other states establish one goal that encompasses gender, race, and disability. Minnesota’s contracting goal is lower than the federal goal. Table 1 illustrates the differences in the goals set by the federal government and the states for participation by disadvan- taged businesses. I Table 1: State and Federal Disadvantaged Buriness Participation Government Participation goal Qoalr Federal government 10.00% California3 20.00% Rhode Island 10.00% Minnesota 3.75% Texas” 10.00% New York” 17.00% “California laws establish separate goals for minorities and women: 15% for minorities, 5% for women. “Goals administratively established by agency Unlike the federal law and those of the other four states, Minnesota’s law limits participation to economically disadvantaged small businesses, eliminating all references to social disadvantage or gender. The law is in response to the 1989 Supreme Court decision in City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson,:! in which the Court held that Richmond’s minority- contracting program violated the Constitution because Richmond could not statistically demonstrate a history of racial discrimination to justify its program. This decision has affected the state program in Minnesota and may affect programs in the other states that lack this same type of statistical evidence. In 1989 Minnesota suspended its race- and gender- based program after its state program was challenged on the same grounds as in Croson, and instead adopted interim race- and gender- neutral legislation. Appendix III discusses these issues in greater detail. Neither federal nor state statutes contain substantive operative stan- States Say Federal and dards for highway design, Most design standards are contained, rather, State Design in volumes of administrative policy promulgated by the American Asso- Standards Are Nearly ciation of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The design standards establish, for instance, how wide road lanes must be or Identical where guardrails may be placed. ‘488 US. 469 (1989) Page 5 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws B-238489 Many states have adopted the AASHTD standards in their exact form for application on state roads; other states have promulgated standards of their own. In cases where the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found the state standards to be reasonably similar to the federal standards, it has permitted the state to use these standards on projects receiving federal aid. If FHWA does not approve a state’s standards, the state may apply the standards to state-funded projects but may not apply them to projects receiving federal-aid funds. New York, for example, reports that for economic reasons, it has modified the federal guidelines for roadside clearance for application on state-funded high- ways. Each of the five states we reviewed reports that the variation from federal standards is minimal, and four states-California, Minne- sota, New York, and Texas-report that some of their state standards are more stringent than the federal standards. Safety and the potential risk of liability, according to one state’s officials, are major considera- tions when deciding whether to deviate from the federally approved design standards. While some state prevailing wage, environmental, disadvantaged busi- Conclusions ness contracting, and highway design laws parallel the federal statutes, others vary considerably. State officials maintain that in several instances where the state laws are not similar, administrative guidelines have established processes equivalent to the federal laws. Where state laws are equivalent to federal laws, the states may be main- taining values similar to those of the federal government. However, the presence of equivalent laws is not in itself a guarantee that the protec- tions afforded by the states and the federal government are equivalent. For instance, compliance with the laws may vary considerably among states, and state and federal courts may interpret similar laws differently. Where state officials maintain that regulations and administrative guidelines have established processes and standards equivalent to-or more stringent than-those in the federal statutes, this may also indi- cate that the states and federal government are maintaining similar values. Verification of the equivalency of these processes and standards, however, would require a review beyond the scope of this report. Here, too, the equivalency of protections afforded by the federal government and states would rely upon compliance with the regulations and procedures. Page 6 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws , B-239499 Additionally, the existence of the state laws and administrative guidance does not guarantee that states will continue enforcing the cur- rent laws or abiding by current policies should the states no longer be required to demonstrate compliance with the federal laws. Statutes may be rescinded or amended through a state’s legislative process; adminis- trative programs may be changed even more easily through an agency’s internal procedures. A number of factors, however, suggest that some states would be likely to maintain state processes and statutes in the absence of federal requirements. In the area of highway design, for example, perceived liability may encourage states to maintain or bolster state standards. The Congress may choose from a number of options in determining the Matters for appropriate level of responsibility states should assume for the federal Congressional highway program. First, Congress could decide to maintain the status Consideration quo-not exempting states from any of the federal compliance require- ments that are currently a precondition for obtaining federal funding. This option incurs the least risk of diluting efforts aimed toward upholding important national goals. Second, Congress could decide to excuse states completely from compliance requirements, entrusting each state with the freedom to administer the federal funds according to whatever rules and laws that state deems appropriate. This option incurs the greatest risk should states decide to rescind existing state laws or relax compliance with them. Third, Congress could decide to waive some or all of the requirements for compliance with the laws but require states to demonstrate that they are providing an acceptable level of protection to such concerns as labor, the environment, minority businesses, and highway safety. The third option would require that Congress determine what level of protection it is comfortable with and what safeguards would be necessary to ensure that states continue to enforce laws and programs that satisfy this standard. The five states whose laws we reviewed and FHWA generally agreed with Agency Comments the facts presented in this report. The states and FHWA provided some technical corrections and clarifications, which have been incorporated. Additionally, FHWA expressed its concern that our review addresses only statutory law and does not assess compliance with these statutes or review significant case law interpretations of the statutes. In response, we acknowledged the limitations of using the results of this analysis for Page 7 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws R-239489 future policy decisions and reviewed one Supreme Court case that FHWA identified as integral to our discussion of environmental law. To complete this comparison of federal and state laws, GAO analyzed the federal Davis-Bacon, NEPA, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, and highway design laws in their entirety and then searched state statutes for comparable provisions. Realizing that state regulations and policies might affect the way states administer these laws, GAO visited with state attorneys and transportation officials to discuss state operations. We did not, however, verify states’ reports of administrative policies, of courts’ interpretations of the statutes, or of regulatory guidance that states claimed mitigate differences between federal and state laws. We also did not review compliance with the federal or state statutes. While GAO rec- ognizes the importance of addressing these issues in a complete assess- ment of the equivalency between state and federal activities in a given area, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this review. Views of fed- eral officials from the Department of Transportation on our analysis and the comparability of state and federal laws are also represented in this report. Our work was performed between August 1989 and Feb- ruary 1990. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FHWA; interested congressional committees; partici- pating states; and other interested parties. This work was performed under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead, Director, Transportation Issues, who may be reached at (202) 275-1000. Major contributors to the Assistant Comptroller General Page 8 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws . Page 9 GAO/BCED-W157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Contents Letter 1 Appendix I 12 Davis-Bacon Union Agreements Often Supersede State Laws Variations in Contract Amount Floors Are Insignificant 12 12 Prevailing Wage Laws Overtime Is More Strictly Defined at the State Level 13 Appendix II 18 National Three of Five States Have Environmental Acts Similar to NEPA 18 Environmental Policy Act Appendix III 25 Disadvantaged States’ Programs Encourage Disadvantaged Businesses to Participate in State Contracts 25 Business Enterprise Supreme Court Has Challenged State Disadvantaged 26 Laws Business Contracting Programs Appendix IV 30 Highway Design Laws States Have Tailored Federal Standards to Meet Specific 31 Needs Appendix V 33 Major Contributors to This Report Tables Table 1: State and Federal Disadvantaged Business 5 Participation Goals Table 1.1: Federal and State Prevailing Wage Laws 14 Table II. 1: Federal and State Environmental Protection 22 Laws Table 11.2:Significant Environmental Impact Statement 24 Provisions Table III. 1: Federal and State Disadvantaged Business 28 Enterprise Laws Page 10 GAO/RCED-90-187 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws . Contents Figure Figure IV. 1: Comparison of Minnesota’s and AASHlU’s 32 Shoulder Width Standards Abbreviations AASHm American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise EIS Environmental impact statement w FHWA Federal Highway Administration GAO General Accounting Office NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Page 11 GAO/RCED-90467 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix I Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wagk Laws In 1931 Congress enacted the Davis-Bacon Act,’ which-requires contrac- tors to pay laborers on federal public works projects those wages pre- vailing in that area for similar types of labor. Since its enactment, the five states that we reviewed have each adopted similar legislation for state-funded public works projects. Although some differences exist between the federal and state laws, the federal act and all five of the state laws provide generally equivalent protections to laborers on public works projects. According to two of the five states we reviewed, the primary means of Union Agreements establishing prevailing wage rates is through reference to union collec- Often SupersedeState tive bargaining agreements. According to state officials in Rhode Island, Laws union workers perform nearly all of the labor contracted for by the state transportation department. According to officials in California, New York, and Rhode Island, the union contracts often set rules for basic wages that exceed the requirements of the states’ prevailing wage laws. New York officials state that in the areas of the state not highly union- ized, the prevailing wage laws are an integral part of ensuring the pay- ment of prevailing wages and supplements. State officials in Texas report that Texas has elected to use the same rates established by the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor as the prevailing wages for state-funded projects. One example of the generally minor variations between the federal and Variations in Contract state prevailing wage laws is the variation in thresholds at which the Amount Floors Are wage laws apply. The federal Davis-Bacon Act applies to all contracts Insignificant with dollar values in excess of $2,000. Rhode Island’s law establishes a floor of $1,000, and both Texas’ and New York’s laws set no minimum amount, requiring that prevailing wage laws apply to all state contracts. California’s and Minnesota’s laws set dual limits-dependent upon the type and magnitude of the project. California requires that prevailing wage laws apply for construction projects in excess of $25,000, and for maintenance work costing more than $15,000. California officials explain that smaller contracts than these are usually home service projects-for instance, carpentry or electrical wiring-where the small number of employees would not justify the expense of monitoring pay- rolls and visiting sites to ensure compliance with the laws. Likewise, Minnesota sets the application floor at $2,500 for contracts involving only one trade or occupation, and $25,000 for those involving more than ‘40 U.S.C., sec. 276a-1 thru 276a-6 Page 12 GAO/RCED-fW157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws . Appendix I DavbBacon PrevaiUng Wage Lawe - one trade or occupation. According to both officials in New York and Texas, the differences between federal and state contract floors are insignificant since nearly every highway contract-at both the state and federal levels-exceeds these minimum amounts. Similarly, minor variations exist in how the states and federal govern- Overtime Is More ment define the legal work day and work week, with the state laws Strictly Defined at the slightly stricter than the federal law. The federal Fair Labor Standards State Level Act defines the legal work week for laborers on federal public works projects as 40 hours per week. California, Minnesota, and New York establish the legal work week at 40 hours, but also define the legal work day as 8 hours. For example, under these state laws, a laborer working a 40-hour week, in increments of 4 lo-hour days would receive overtime pay for 2 hours each day. Rhode Island requires that either 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day constitute the maximum work period, which- ever isprevailing in the area. Texas laws are silent on the subject, although Texas state officials report that any work in excess of 8 hours per day is paid at the overtime rate. Table I. 1 illustrates the similarities and differences between significant provisions in the Davis-Bacon Act and in corresponding state laws. Page 13 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix I , Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Laws Table 1.1: Federal and State PrevaMng Wage Laws Type of worker and Definition of Prevailing wage Provisions in bids/ Contract floor work prevailing wage inclusion8 contracts DavrsBacon Act $2,000 Laborers or Wages required to be Hourly rate of pay, Prevailing wages mechanics employed paid various classes benefit contributions, must be stipulated in 40 USC. sec. 276(a) in the construction, of laborers and administration costs ads for bids and 29 U.S.C. sec. 207 alteration, and/or mechanics based contracts. (a)(11 repair-including upon the wages painting and determined by the decorating -of Secretary of Labor to public works be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the contract work in the location in which the work is to _..-..__- be performed California $15,000 for Workmen employed The general Per diem wages Prevailing wages maintenance on public works prevailing rate of per include employer must either be Labor Code contracts projects paid for in diem wages for work payments for published in calls to sec. 1771 whole or in part by of a similar character benefits, including bid, bid sec. 1772 $25,000 for state funds in the locality in which welfare, pension, specifications, or sec. 1773 construction the public work is vacation, etc. referred to in a copy sec. 1777 contracts performed on file at awarding sec. 1615 body’s principal .--___- office. Minnesota $2,500 for contracts Laborers and The hourly basic rate Hourly basic rate of Contracts and requiring one trade or mechanics employed of pay plus the pay and contributions proposals must state Statutes Annotated occupation to on state-funded contributions for to benefit plans prevailing wage rates, sec. 177.25 complete erections,, health and welfare hours of labor, and sec. 177.31 constructron, benefits, vacation, hourly basic rates of sec. 177.42 $25,000 for contracts remodeling, or repair pension, etc. paid to pay. sec. 177.43 requirin more than of a public work the largest number of sec. 177.44 one tra 1 e or workers engaged in occupation the same class of labor within the area - ...I New York Laborers, workmen, Rate of wage paid in Supplements, e.g., All contracts and or mechanics the locality by virtue health insurance, advertised Labor Law Article 6 employed on all of collective welfare, retirement, specifications must sec. 20 contracts to which bargaining must be in stipulate the the state is a party a reements between accordance with prevailing wages to la%or organizations prevailing practices in be paid and and employers the locality. supplemental performing public or payments to benefit private work plans. Page 14 GAO/RCED-90-157 A comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix I Davis-Jhcon Prevailing wage Laws Method of wage Suspension for failure to determination Posting of wages Work week and hours Provision for overtime pay prevailing wage Secretary of Labor will’ Wage rates must be 40 hours/week No less than 1.5 times the 3 years determine prevailrng posted by contractor in a basic wage rate wages prominent and easily accesible place at the site of work. ..- ..- -_- Director of industrial If filed copy is referred to, No more than 8 hours/day 1.5 times the basic rate of Not less than 1 year, not Relatrons sets wages, copies of rates must be and 40 hours/week wages for all hours in more than 3 years considenng collective posted at job site. excess of 8 per day bargainrng agreements, federally established rates, or further data from local labor and employers. Wages are set quarterly. At least once per year, the Hours,, rates, and labor Prevailing hours not to Not less than 1.5 times the No provision Department of Labor & classrfrcations must be exceed 8 hours/day or 40 basic hourly rate of pay Industry conducts posted on the project in at hours/week investigations and holds least one conspicuous public hearings necessary place. to define classes of laborers and mechanrcs and to determine prevarling hours of labor, wage rates, and basic rates of pay. Department of jurisdiction Wages must be posted in 8 hours/day and 5 days/ Premium wage prevailing Two violations in 6 years ascertains from plans and a prominent and week, except in in the area where work is result in a 5-year specifications the classes accessible place on the emergency conditions performed suspension. of workmen to be site of the work. employed. The fiscal officer of the locality then determines the appropriate wages to be earned by each. (continued) Page 15 GAO/RdED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix I Davis-BaconPrevdling Wage Lawn Type of worker and Definition of Prevailing wage Provisions in bids/ Contract floor work ---~ prevailing wage _-___-.-inclusions contracts Rhode Island $1,000 Mechanics, Prevailing rates for Hourly rate of pay, All contracts and calls teamsters, laborers, the corresponding benefit contributions, to bid must contain General Laws workmen, or workers types of employees administration costs provisions stating sec. 37-13-1 thru sec. of any craft employed on projects of a prevailing wages to 37-13-16 in the grading, character similar to be paid and cleaning, demolition, the contract work in frequency of improvement, the city, town, village, payment, completion, repair, or political subdivision alteration,, of the state in which constructron- the work is to be including painting performed and decorating -of public works ~-.-- Texas $0 Laborers, workmen, Not less than the No specific prevailing Prevailing per diem, and mechanics general prevailing wage inclusions holiday, and overtime Labor Code, employed on all rate of per diem wages must be Annotated contracts to which wages for work of a specified in call for Title 83, Article the state is a party similar character in bids and in contract. 5159(a) the locality in which sets. 1,2,3 the work is performed Page 16 GAO/RCED90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws . AQQendixI Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage hwm Method of wage Suspension for failure to determination _ ._-..-_.. .._....----- Porting of wage8 Work week and hours Provirion for overtime pay prevailing wage Director of Labor Prevailing wage rates and Maximum of 40 hours/ Prevailing rate of wages 18 months determines the prevailing benefit contributions must week or 8 hours/day, for overtime employment wages and payments to be conspicuously whichever practice is benefit plans. displayed at project site. prevailing Wages are determined by No provision 8 hours/day Not less than 1.5 times the No provision the public body awarding required basic rate the contract or authorizing the work, whose decision in the matter shall be final. Y Page 17 GAO/RCRD-90457 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix II National Environmental Polk-y Act Since the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) inception in 1969, a number of states have adopted “little NEPAS” modeled after the federal statute. Like NEPA, these acts require government agencies to prepare impact statements on actions affecting or potentially affecting the quality of the environment. Of the five states reviewed for this analysis, three have adopted state Three of Five States legislation similar to NEPA. California, Minnesota, and New York have Have Environmental environmental protection acts that incorporate the major provisions of Acts Similar to NEPA the federal statute and in some cases incorporate more stringent require- ments than NEPA. The other two states, Texas and Rhode Island, do not have environmental laws comparable to NEPA. However, according to Texas officials, the state administrative policy for environmental impact assessment closely resembles NEPA. Rhode Island transportation officials note that the small number of state-funded projects do not merit a sepa- rate state environmental protection act. Additionally, according to these officials, the projects funded solely by the state are on such a small scale that the protections afforded the environment by such a law would rarely be necessary: Small projects, like resurfacing roads, generally do not threaten the environment. NEPA requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) for all major fed- eral actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environ- ment. The EIS, as one court has stated, permits the court to ascertain whether the agency has made a good faith effort to take into account the values NEPA seeks to safeguard. . . . [IJt serves as an environ- mental full disclosure law, providing information which Congress thought the public should have concerning the particular environmental costs involved in a project.’ California’s, Minnesota’s, and New York’s environmental laws have incorporated essentially the same specifications as defined by NEPA for the content of an ~1s. Roth Federal and State One similarity between federal and state environmental acts is their application to private construction projects. California’s, Minnesota’s, Laws Apply to Private and New York’s acts apply not only to actions proposed by the state, but Development also to any projects state and local agencies “approve” that may have a significant effect on the environment. This requirement renders the ‘Silva v. Lynn (II), 482 F2d 1282,1284(1st Cir. 1973) Page 18 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix II National Environmental Policy Act funding source irrelevant; projects receiving no public funds are still subject to the requirements of the environmental acts if they require a permit from or approval by a public agency. According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)officials, NEPA also applies to any project that requires a federal permit, even if no federal funding or sponsorship of the project is involved. Thresholds for Preparing A slight difference between NEPA and the state environmental acts is the Impact Statements Vary point where a decision is made whether an EIS,isnecessary. This threshold, above which the statement is determined necessary, varies Slightly at the Federal and slightly between the federal law and state laws. NEPArequires an EISfor State Levels “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” Minnesota requires a statement where there is the “potential” for such effects. California and New York both require state- ments for projects that “may have a significant effect” and eliminate the federal reference to “major” projects. According to officials in all three states, in actual practice, the threshold for preparing an environ- mental impact report is essentially the same under the federal and state programs. State Laws Often In addition to having core elements similar to those of NEPA,California’s, Incorporate Federal Minnesota’s, and New York’s laws incorporate additional safeguards or directions augmenting the environmental impact assessment process. All Regulations - . . and CaseLaw three states have expanded on the environmental decision-making Uecisions responsibilities contained in NEPA,in some cases, quite extensively. In many cases, these elaborations reflect federal regulatory provisions or significant case law decisions, which states have elected to codify within their statutes. For instance, the California act includes an extensive list of the types of projects excluded from the environmental process, including emergency repairs necessary to maintain service and projects undertaken to repair disaster-stricken areas. According to state officials, these exclusions are derived nearly verbatim from the federal imple- menting regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality.” ‘The Council on Environmental Quality is an agency established by Title II of NEPA in the Executive Office of the President. The Council has become the principal agency responsible for the administra- tion of NEPA, primarily through the adoption of interpretive regulations. NEPA conferred to the Council only advisory-in contrast to enforcement-duties that include environmental review, research, and reporting. Page 19 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix XI National Environmental Policy Act In addition, although there is no federal statutory provision for identi- fying actions to mitigate adverse environmental effects, the Supreme Court ruled in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council3 that one of the most important ingredients in an EIS is a “discussion of steps that could be taken to mitigate adverse environmental consequences.” A number of states’ environmental acts contain a provision embodying the language of this court decision. State Laws Provide for Judicial review, or the process for seeking remedies for alleged harm Judicial Review of State through the judicial system, is not specifically provided for in NEPA. State laws, however, include provisions that permit those asserting envi- Environmental Acts ronmental injury to seek remedies in a court of law. While New York provides state courts with limited standing to review compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, California establishes the specific procedure for judicial review of agency actions claimed not to be in compliance with the state act. The Caiifornia act specifies time limits for the commencement of court action and extends judicial inquiry to whether there was a “prejudicial abuse of discretion,” which is estab- lished “if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if its determination or decision is not supported by substantial evi- dence.” FHWA officials report that although federal statutory provisions for judicial review are nonexistent, early court decisions established the precedent for claims of environmental injury to be heard in court. Table II. 1 compares the significant provisions of NEPA and of the state laws in California, Minnesota, and New York. Table II.2 compares the EIS content requirements for federal and state laws. “109 S.Ct. 1836 (1989) Page 20 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Page 21 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws , Appendix II National Environmental Policy Act Table 11.1:Federal and State Environmental Protection Laws Avoidance of adverse Weight of environmental effects, reliance on concerns in agency alternatives, and mitigating decision making measures Federal National Appropriate consideration No provision in statute Environmental Policy Act along with economic and (NEPA) technical considerations 42.U.S.C sec. 4331 sec. 4332 California Environmental Consideration of qualitative, Project should not be Quality Act (CEQA) economic, long- and short- approved if feasible term benefits and costs alternatives or mitigating Government Code measures are available to sec. 21080.3 lessen environmental effects. sec. 21001(3) sec. 21002 sec. 21092 sec. 21167,21168 Minnesota Environmental At least equal consideration Action is not allowed if a Policy Act (MEPA) along with economical and feasible and prudent technical considerations alternative exists. sec. 116D.O3(b) sec. 116D.04 subd. 2, subd. 6, subd. 9, and subd. 10 New York State Appropriate weight with To the maximum extent Environmental Quality social and economic practicable, adverse Review Act (SEQRA) considerations in public environmental effects should policy be avoided. New York Environmental Conservation Law sec. 60109 Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix II NatIonal Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Decision process for statement (EIS) $t;$ining the need for Coordination with other Administrative and/or requirements agencies Public notification judicial review For major federal actrons No provision in statute Before preparation of an Copies of EIS, comments, No provision in statute signrficantly affecting the EIS, agency must and views from quality of the human coordinate with any appropriate agencies shall environment federal agency with legal be made available to the jurisdiction or expertise public. with regard to impacts, .^_.-. . - - -I_ For any project that may No provision in statute Before an Environmental Agency preparing an EIR Judicial inquiry is limited have a significant effect Impact Report (EIR) must notify public through to whether agency has on the environment decision (equivalent to an publication, posting, and/ proceeded in accordance EIS), lead agency must or direct mail. Completed with law or whether coordinate with other report must be available to agency’s decision is responsibile agencies. state legislature and supported by substantial Before completion of an general public for cost of evidence. EIR, agency shall reproduction. coordinate with relevant agencies and persons with special expertise with respect to impacts. ~--.-. For major governmental To determine whether an Before reparation of a Copies of EIS, comments, Board has authority to actions where there is the EIS is necessary, an final Ell , the responsible and views of the reverse or modify a potential for significant Environmental government unit must approporiate offices shall proposal following notice envrronmental effects Assessment Worksheet is coordinate with every be made available to the to agency and hearings on required when an action governmental office with public. decision. Aggrieved has been (1) categorically legal jurisdiction or parties may seek judicial determined to require one, expertise with respect to review. (2) when a petition is filed effects. and approved requiring Decisions on the need for one, or (3) where an or adequacy of an EIS may envrronmental reveiw has be reviewed in the district not been provided for court of the county where specifically. the action would be - __... undertaken. For any action that may Agency may require Draft EIS shall be filed with Draft and final EIS must be State courts have limited have a significant effect applicant to submit the department or other made available to the standing to review on the environment environmental report to designated agencies and public prior to project compliance with SEQRA help agency determine if circulated for comment to implementation. Notice of for those asserting an EIS is necessary. federal, state, regional, initial determination with environmental injury. and local agencies having supporting findings shall an interest In the action. be available for public inspection. Agency determines whether or not to hold public hearings on a project. Note: Rhode Island and Texas are excluded from this comparison as they do not have comparable environmental protection laws. Page 23 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix II National Environmental Policy Act Table 11.2:Significant Environmental Impact Statement Provisions EIS Content Federal NEPA Minnesota Act New York Act California Act Analysis of action’s environmental Yes Yes Yt?S Yes Impact ~- Analysis of unavoidable adverse Yes Yes Yes Yes effects Drscussron of alternatives to proposed Yes Yes Yes Yes action Analysis of relationship bet&en Yes No Yes Yes ~~ short-term uses of environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity Exploratron of methods to mitigate NO Yes Yes Yes effects of environmental action Analysis of any irreversible Yes No Yes Yes commrtment of resources Drscussron of growth-inducing No No Yes Yes aspects of proposed action --- --- Drscussion of measures to conserve No No Yes Yes mew Note: Rhode Island and Texas are excluded because laws in these states do not require the preparation of an EIS. Page 24 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws ppendix III bisadvmtaged BusinessEnterprise Laws With the intent of encouraging participation by socially and economi- cally disadvantaged individuals in public contracting, Congress included in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) a provision establishing the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. The legislation states that no less than 10 per- cent of the amounts authorized through the act should be contracted to small businesses owned and operated by socially and economically dis- advantaged individuals. Such individuals are defined in section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), which names specific groups of individuals who qualify as disadvantaged for the program’s purpose. The law also specifies that women shall be presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals for the purpose of the program. All five states we reviewed have enacted some form of legislation to States’ Programs encourage participation by disadvantaged businesses in public con- Encourage tracting. Three of the five states have established goals in the legislation Disadvantaged itself. Minnesota set a disadvantaged business contracting goal of 3.75 percent, and Rhode Island legislators mirrored the federal law, estab- Businessesto lishing a goal of 10 percent. California, reasoning that a single goal could Participate in State result in the underutilization of businesses owned by women, estab- Contracts lished a separate goal for minorities (15 percent) and for women (5 per- cent). The remaining states have administratively established programs to encourage minority participation. The Texas Commerce Department has set an agency goal of 10 percent for the Department of Transporta- tion, and the New York Department of Transportation sets an annual goal for businesses owned by disadvantaged persons, members of minority groups, and women, which the department reports it has main- tained at 17 percent for the past 2 years. The federal law and the state programs vary somewhat in how they define eligibility for inclusion under their programs. The federal pro- gram provides for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, members of which are specified legislatively. The Rhode Island law is identical to the federal law, applying to economically and socially disad- vantaged groups, the members of which are spelled out in the legisla- tion. New York, Texas, and California do not delineate between economic and social disadvantage, but, rather, identify the specific minority groups that qualify for contracts under the state programs. All four of these states classify women as an eligible disadvantaged group. Minnesota’s program is race- and gender-neutral, based solely on the premise of economic disadvantage, defined by criteria such as the age of Page 26 GAO/RCEDSO-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix Ill Disadvantaged Business Enterprbe Laws the business and the owner’s income relative to the median income in the state. In the past year, several states’ minority and disadvantaged business Supreme Court Has enterprise programs have become subjects for legal battle. Following a Challenged State landmark Supreme Court decision that found a city ordinance unconsti- Disadvantaged tutional in its establishment of racial preferences for minority busi- nesses, a number of state programs were challenged on similar questions Business Contracting of constitutionality. To date, three of the states we reviewed have been Programs affected by these suits. Rhode Island, whose statutes are currently being challenged, anticipates forthcoming legislative changes. New York, also, according to state officials, is currently defending four lawsuits involving the state’s disadvantaged business contracting program. Min- nesota, faced with a similar lawsuit, suspended its existing program, and enacted interim legislation until statistical support for a race- and gender-based program could be obtained. On January 23,1989, the Supreme Court ruled in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.1 that a city ordinance requiring prime contractors to subcontract at least 30 percent of their city construction contracts to minority contractors violated the equal protection clause of the four- teenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In striking down the ordi- nance, the Court stated that in order for the program to be acceptable under the fourteenth amendment, it must 1) have a “compelling govern- mental interest” justifying the plan, and 2) be “narrowly tailored” to remedy past discrimination. The Court ruled that the city of Richmond had not demonstrated a “compelling governmental interest” because the city could not present any firm evidence of identified past discrimina- tion in the city’s construction industry. The Court also found that the city’s plan was not “narrowly tailored” to remedy prior discrimination because the program allowed preferences for groups where no evidence of prior discrimination had been demonstrated. Additionally, the Court noted that the plan allowed preferences for individuals living outside the geographic area in which discrimination was alleged. Minnesota SuspendsDBE The impact of this and any subsequent Supreme Court decisions on state disadvantaged and minority business contracting programs has yet to be Program in the Wake of fully realized. In the wake of Croson and another Supreme Court deci- Croson * sion, which found that to be constitutional, a gender-based program ‘488 US. 469 (1989) Page 26 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix III Dhdvantaged Business Enterprise Lawe must also be substantiated with firm evidence of discrimination2 Minne- sota suspended its race- and gender-based program. In its place, Minne- sota enacted an interim gender- and race-neutral program based solely on the economic status of the business. Meanwhile, efforts were under- taken to determine the need and justification for a race- and/or gender- based program. The Minnesota legislature established a commission to compile statistical information evidencing a history of discrimination against several racial groups and women. These findings, along with evi- dence demonstrating how race- and gender-based set-aside programs had helped ameliorate the underutilization of specific minority groups, underscored the need for a new, statistically substantiated race- and gender-based program. According to Minnesota Transportation officials, new legislation that would establish a race- and gender-based disadvan- taged business contracting program has passed both branches of the legislature. Table III. 1 illustrates the similarities and differences between the major provisions of the federal and state disadvantaged business enterprise laws. ‘Milliken v. Michigan Road Builders Association, 109 S. Ct. 1333 (1989) Page 27 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws , Appendix III . Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Laws Table 111.1:Federal and State Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Laws Minimum DBE contract Contract amount Contract type Application --- Scope of coverage requirement limitations Federal All contracts pursuant Small business Black Americans, Not less than 10% of None specified Disadvantaged to 1982 Surface concerns owned and Hispanic Americans, all surface Business Enterprise Transportation controlled by socially Native Americans, transportation WE) Assistance Act and economically Asian-Pacific contracts disadvantaged Americans, and other P.L. 97-424 sec. 8(d) individuals individuals found to of 15 U SC. 637(d) be disadvantaged .._...- ..-. _---.-... -- under this act Calrfornia All contracts for At least 51% of a Black, Hispanic, and Statewide and None specified construction, business or its stock Native Americans agency goals for F;;i3C;de sec. professional services, must be owned by (descendants of contracting with materials, supplies, one or more women American Indians, minority- and women- equipment, or members of a Eskimos, Aleuts, owned businesses alterations, repairs, minority group. Must Native Hawaiians), should be 15% and and improvements be a domestic Asian-Pacific 5% of contracts, corporation with Americans respectively. home office in the (descendants of United States that is peoples from Japan, managed by and China, Philippines, whose daily business Vietnam, Korea, operations are Samoa, Guam, U.S. controlled by one or Trust Territories of the more members of a Pacific, Northern minority group or Marianas, Laos, women. Cambodia, Taiwan) or members of other groups identified by contracting agency Mrnnesota Contracts for Small businesses Small businesses that At least 5% of all No individual contract construction of owned and operated are (1) located in an state contracts must may exceed Statutes Annotated transportation by economically area where there is a be set aside for $200,000, nor shall sec. 161.321, improvements disadvantaged surplus of labor, (2) award to small any one subd. 1,3,and 4 persons located in a county businesses: at least disadvantaged sec. 645.445, subd. 5 where median income 75% of this must be business, as defined, sec. 168.19, subd. 5 is less than 70% of awarded to small be awarded in statewide median businesses certified a regate more than income, (3) within the as economically $!$O,OOOin 1 fiscal first 10 years of disadvantaged. year. operation, or (4) otherwise economically _ . ~.~~~.._.-_- .._.---. disadvantaged (continued) Page 28 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix III Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Laws Minimum DEE contract Contract amount Contract type Application Scope of coverage requirement limitations __- New York Agreements in Business enterprises Permanent resident None specified None specified excess of $25,000 for at least 51% owned alien or U.S. citizen of Executrve Law sec. labor services, by minority group the following groups: 310, subd. 13 supplies, equipment, members or women, or materials where ownership is women, blacks, real, substantial, and Hispanics, Native Agreements in continuing. Such Americans, Alaskans, excess of $100,000 owners must control Asians, and Pacific for the acquisition, the day-to-day Islanders. construction, operations of the demolition, business. replacement, major repair, or renovation of real property and improvements thereon Subcontracts for all above activities along with planning or design of real property .---- Rhode Island State-funded and Small business Citizen or lawful Minority enterprises None specified directed public concerns owned by permanent resident of shall be awarded a General Laws construction and whose daily the United States minimum of 10% of Vol. 6A, Chapter 14.1 programs and operations are who is female, black, the dollar value of set 37-14.1 projects and state controlled by one or Hispanic, Portuguese, every procurement or purchases of goods more minorities or Asian American, project. and services women; at least 51% American Indian, of business or public Alaskan Native, or stock must be owned found to be by such persons. economically and socially disadvantaged as described in sec. 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 USC.) ~- (637(a)). ..-..-_ Texas Public contract Businesses at least Women, Black Statute gives None specified awards 51% owned and Americans, Hispanic authority to Texas Civil Practice & whose management Americans, Asian- Department of Remedies Code and daily operations Pacific Americans, Commerce to Annotated are controlled by and American Indians establish goals sec. 106.001(c)(Z) women or members commensurate with sec. 106.001(c)(l)A of minority groups availability of sec. 106.OOl(c)(l)B disadvantaged firms to perform certain services. Page 29 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix IV Highway Design Laws The FederaleAid Highway Act of 1958’ requires that projects receiving federal-aid highway funds (1) meet existing and future traffic needs in a manner conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance and (2) be designed and constructed in accordance with standards best suited to accomplish the foregoing objectives. Most of these standards have been promulgated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTD). AA~HTO, representing state inter- ests, publishes and periodically updates volumes of administrative policy for the purpose of establishing standards for highway design. FHWA has adopted these standards as the specific controls for the design of federal-aid highways. Many states have adopted these federal (AASHTO) standards in their exact form for application on state highways that are constructed without the use of federal-aid funds. Other states have promulgated standards of their own for application on state highways. These stan- dards, when judged by FHWA to be in reasonable conformity with AASII?D standards, have been approved by the Federal Highway Administrator for use on federal-aid highway projects. Design standards dictate specifications for construction, such as lane width, road curvature, and guardrail placement. These specifications depend on a number of factors, such as the projected daily volume and character of traffic. Most of the operative guidance for highway design is in state design manuals rather than codified in statutes. Both the federal and state laws provide some general guidance on design, but, according to both state and federal officials, these requirements establish only the minimum standards. For instance, Minnesota’s statutes require a vertical clear- ance of at least 14 feet under bridges in urban areas. Officials from this state report, however, that the state design policies require a clearance of 16 feet. California officials add that design standards are not codified because they change over time and thus should not be rigidly fixed in statute. ‘P.1,. 86-767, 23 IJSC. 109 Page 30 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws Appendix IV Highway Design Laws Although the federal and state statutes governing highway and bridge States Have Tailored design are largely incomparable, states report that the standards they Federal Standards to actually apply to state projects are equivalent-in many cases, iden- Meet Specific Needs tical-to those required for federal-aid projects. All five states report that they have adopted AASHTO standards as the states’ principal guidance. In some instances, though, the states have tailored AASH~D standards to suit state needs. For instance, because of high land costs, New York standards for roadside clearance are lower for state projects than what would be required for a federal-aid project. New York offi- cials say, however, that they consider the history of safety problems in an area before applying a standard lower than the corresponding AASHTO standard. California, Minnesota, Texas, and New York all report that in certain areas, the state standards exceed the standards required for federal-aid projects. For instance, in California, officials report that the state stan- dard for superelevation’ on curves is higher than the corresponding AASHTD standard. New York has begun to require a concrete divider dif- ferent from the &W-rro-approved “jersey shape barrier”:’ in order to reduce injury to passengers and damage to vehicles in the event of a collision. For high volume traffic areas-primarily urban areas-Texas officials report that they have begun to design pavement for a 30-year design life rather than the 20-year design life required by AASHTO. Min- nesota’s requirement for shoulder width on principal arterials” ranges from 8 to 12 feet while AASHID’S requirement ranges from 4 to 10 feet. (See fig. IV. 1.) “Superelevation refers to the vertical distance between the heights of inner and outer edges of highway pavement. “Jersey shape barriers are the concrete median barriers lining highway traffic lanes. They are used primarily to reduce the severity of accidents and to prevent crossover accidents by separating opposing traffic. .‘Arterials are routes that function primarily to move large numbers of persons and vehicles quickly from one place to another. They are characterized by long-distance travel, high volumes, and higher speeds, and generally are constructed to higher design standards than other routes. Page 31 GAO/RCED-SO-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws ” Appendix Iv Highway De&n Laws Figure IV.l: Comparison of Minnesota’s and AASHlO’s Shoulder Width 14 Shouldor Width In Foot Standards 12 Vohlcleo par D8y I Minnesota Department of Transportation Standards AASHTO Stwdards Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation If FHWA approves these higher state standards for use on federal-aid projects, then FHWA pays the cost associated with meeting the higher requirements. Texas state officials report that if the higher standard is not approved by FHWA, the state or locality requesting the design must make up the funding difference between the amount needed to meet the approved standard and the amount approved for the project. Page 32 GAO/RCED-90-167 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws * Appendix V I Major Contributors to This Report II John W. Hill, Jr., Associate Director Resources, Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Assistant Director Community, and Yvonne C. Pufahl, Assignment Manager Leila D. Kahn, Evaluator-in-Charge Economic John H. Skeen, III, Writer-Editor Development Division, Washington, DC. David Hooper, Attorney Advisor Office of General Counsel (342801) Page 33 GAO/RCED-90-157 A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws 1J.S. Gt~ueral Atwn~utiug Office Post, OfTiw 130x 6015 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 ‘I’t~ltq~horw 202-275-6241 The first. five copies of each report are free. Additional copies are JZ.00 each. ‘I’hew is a 25% discount on orders for 100 or more copiw mailed to a : single address. Orders mrlst be prepaid by cash or by check or money order made out. t.0 I.hr Snpt!ri~~t,entienC of Documents.
Transportation Infrastructure: A Comparison of Federal and State Highway Laws
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-06-27.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)