Federal Highway Programs: Status of Federal Highway Programs in the
Absence of Reauthorization (Testimony, 11/04/97, GAO/T-RCED-98-38).

GAO discussed the status of federal surface transportation programs in
the absence of funding from a new federal highway reauthorization act,
focusing on a comparison of unobligated federal highway fund balances at
the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 1998 with the highway funds that the
states obligated during the first part of FY 1997.

GAO noted that: (1) the total unobligated highway fund balance available
at the beginning of FY 1998 equals $12.1 billion and exceeds the total
actual obligations of $8.1 billion, made by the states during the first
6 months of FY 1997; (2) a comparison of the unobligated balances of
individual states with their actual FY 1997 obligations reveals that
some state highway programs may experience financial difficulties by the
middle of FY 1998 if their obligation rates for this year are comparable
to those for FY 1997; (3) while most states have unobligated balances
that are greater than their actual federal highway obligations in the
first 6 months of FY 1997, 14 states have an unobligated balance that is
lower than their actual obligations during the same period; (4) the nine
states that GAO contacted identified various strategies that they would
use to try to continue their highway operations, such as relying more
extensively on state funds; (5) some of these states also noted that
they would soon be postponing highway projects if new federal funds are
not available within the next few months; (6) the rates at which states
obligated funds in FY 1997 may not correspond to their plans for
obligating federal highway funds in FY 1998; (7) some states may be
limited in their ability to use available unobligated balances because
of restrictions on the specific types of highway programs that the funds
can be used for; (8) the comparisons indicate that while many states may
be able to continue financing highway projects for some time, some
states may have difficulty dealing even in the short term with the
absence of new federal highway funds; (9) a number of strategies could
help the states respond to the absence of new federal funds in the short
term; (10) for example, Congress could provide the states with the
flexibility to use their unobligated balances across the range of
federal highway programs, rather than keeping the balances tied to
specific highway funding categories and demonstration projects; (11)
Congress could then reimburse appropriate funding categories after
reauthorization; (12) individual states could also consider a number of
strategies, such as temporarily substituting state funds for federal
highway funds; (13) states could also begin highway projects by using
advance construction, which enables a state to access capital from a
variety of sources and later receive reimbursements through federal
highway obligations; (14) such strategies, however, may delay other
planned projects within individual states; and (15) these strategies may
not be feasible for some states or for an extended period of time.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-98-38
     TITLE:  Federal Highway Programs: Status of Federal Highway 
             Programs in the Absence of Reauthorization
      DATE:  11/04/97
   SUBJECT:  Federal aid for highways
             Unobligated budget balances
             Federal/state relations
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
             State-administered programs
             Highway planning
             Financial management

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.  Senate

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m.  EST
Tuesday
Nov.  4, 1997

FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS - STATUS
OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS IN THE
ABSENCE OF REAUTHORIZATION

Statement of Phyllis F.  Scheinberg,
Associate Director, Transportation Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-98-38

GAO/RCED-98-38T


(348059)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ISTEA -
  FHWA -
  CMAQ -
  AASHTO -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide information on the status of
federal surface transportation programs in the absence of funding
from a new federal highway reauthorization act.  As you know, in
1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) authorized over $122 billion in federal funds for highway
programs for fiscal years 1992 through 1997.\1 This authorization
expired on September 30, 1997, and no new federal highway funds have
been authorized for fiscal year 1998.  The states can, however, use
their unobligated balances that remain from the ISTEA authorization
period.  For all 50 states, these federal-aid highway balances
totaled $12.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1998.\2

Specifically, you asked that we compare unobligated federal highway
fund balances at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the highway
funds that the states obligated during the first part of fiscal year
1997.  We performed this analysis using actual obligation data for
federal-aid highway projects during the first 4 through 7 months of
fiscal year 1997.  For illustrative purposes, however, this testimony
will focus on the 6-month period.  (Details for the 4- through
7-month periods are presented in apps.  I and II.) At your request,
our testimony will also address strategies that could temporarily
help the states continue to fund highway programs in the absence of a
federal highway authorization act. 

Our work is based on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
obligation data for all 50 states.  In addition, we contacted nine
states to obtain their views on how they would operate without new
federal highway funds in the short term.  When we analyzed FHWA's
obligation data for the 50 states, the analysis was limited to total
obligation levels for federal highway projects.  We did not address
other important areas, such as the potential effects on the
operations of agencies within the U.  S.  Department of
Transportation or the effects on particular programs, such as
transportation safety programs.  In addition, we did not look at the
impact on transit programs. 

In summary, we compared the level of unobligated highway fund
balances available at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 with the
actual obligations that the states made during the first part of
fiscal year 1997.  The total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion
exceeds the total actual obligations of $8.1 billion that all states
combined made during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997. 
However, a comparison of the unobligated balances of individual
states with their actual fiscal year 1997 obligations reveals that
some state highway programs may experience financial difficulties by
the middle of fiscal year 1998 if their obligation rates for this
year are comparable to those for fiscal year 1997.  The analysis
indicates that while most states have unobligated balances that are
greater than their actual federal highway obligations in the first 6
months of fiscal year 1997, 14 states have an unobligated balance
that is lower than their actual obligations during that same period. 
The nine states that we contacted identified various strategies that
they would use to try to continue their highway operations, such as
relying more extensively on state funds.  However, some of these
states also noted that they would soon be postponing highway projects
if new federal funds are not available within the next few months. 

It is important to note when making these types of comparisons that
the rates at which states obligated funds in fiscal year 1997 may not
correspond to their plans for obligating federal highway funds in
fiscal year 1998.  Furthermore, some states may be limited in their
ability to use available unobligated balances because of restrictions
on the specific types of highway programs that the funds can be used
for.  Nonetheless, the comparisons do indicate that while many states
may be able to continue financing highway projects for some time,
some states may have difficulty dealing even in the short term with
the absence of new federal highway funds. 

A number of strategies could help the states respond to the absence
of new federal highway funds in the short term.  For example, the
Congress could provide the states with the flexibility to use their
unobligated balances across the range of federal highway programs,
rather than keeping the balances tied to specific highway funding
categories and demonstration projects.  Then, after reauthorization,
the Congress could "reimburse" the appropriate funding categories. 
The individual states could also consider a number of strategies,
such as temporarily substituting state funds for federal highway
funds.  The states could also begin highway projects by using advance
construction, which enables a state to access capital from a variety
of sources, including its own funds and private capital, and later
receive reimbursement through federal highway obligations.  However,
such strategies may delay other planned projects within individual
states.  Furthermore, these strategies may not be feasible for some
states or for an extended period of time. 


--------------------
\1 The full ISTEA authorization for all surface transportation
programs, including mass transit, totaled $155 billion for fiscal
years 1992 through 1997. 

\2 Funds that were not obligated at the end of fiscal year 1997
remained unobligated.  These funds are the subject of this testimony. 
The unobligated balances represent funds apportioned or allocated but
not yet committed by the states.  The unobligated balances used in
this statement pertain only to the states and do not apply to the
District of Columbia or the territories. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

ISTEA authorized over $122 billion for highway programs for fiscal
years 1992 through 1997.  The authorization was funded primarily
through federal highway user taxes such as those on motor fuels
(gasoline, gasohol, and diesel), tires, and trucks.  Funds from these
sources are collected from users and credited to the Highway Trust
Fund for highway and mass transit projects or related activities. 
The fund is divided into a highway account and a mass transit
account. 

Except for a few minor deductions, such as those for federal
administrative expenses, federal highway funds are provided to the
states through FHWA, which is part of the U.  S.  Department of
Transportation.  The money is generally distributed to the states
through various formula calculations.\3 The current formula,
established by ISTEA, determines the distribution of funds for 13
funding categories, such as the Interstate Maintenance, the National
Highway System, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
programs.\4

During the ISTEA authorization period, FHWA annually apportioned to
the states authority to obligate funds.  And, if the Congress took no
further action, the states could proceed to obligate all the
authority apportioned to them by FHWA.  However, the Congress also
imposed an annual obligation limitation as part of the appropriation
process on most elements of the federal highway program.  These
limits did not take back spending authority that was already
apportioned to the states; rather, the obligation limits acted to
control the obligation rate. 

The congressionally imposed obligation limits acted to control total
obligations but left the states with some discretion to decide how
they would use their obligation authority across the range of
federal-aid programs.  For example, in a particular year, a state
could obligate all its Interstate Maintenance and National Highway
System funds.  But the state would then have to compensate by
obligating a smaller part of its federal highway funds from other
categories.  In addition, a few categories of highway funding are
exempt from obligation limitations--the two largest are minimum
allocation and demonstration projects.\5

Once FHWA approves a project that a state proposes, the federal share
of the project's cost is considered "obligated" against the state's
apportionment.  The state then proceeds--doing detailed design
engineering, advertising for bids, and selecting a contractor for the
construction work.  The state incurs costs, pays the bills, and then
seeks reimbursement of the federal share from FHWA.  Federal
outlays--that is, actual expenditures--do not occur until the state
is reimbursed.  Furthermore, the funds are outlayed over a number of
years. 


--------------------
\3 ISTEA also authorized over $6.2 billion over 6 years for 539
statutorily designated demonstration projects. 

\4 Throughout this statement, unless otherwise noted, these funding
categories will be referred to as programs. 

\5 Minimum allocation guarantees a state an amount such that its
percentage of total apportionments and prior-year allocations from
certain highway funding categories is not less than 90 percent of the
state's estimated percentage of contributions to the Highway Trust
Fund's Highway Account.  Furthermore, Emergency Relief Program
funding was also exempt from the obligation limits, but ISTEA's
annual authorization for this program was limited to $100 million. 


   COMPARING UNOBLIGATED HIGHWAY
   BALANCES WITH PREVIOUS
   OBLIGATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the total unobligated federal
highway fund balance for all states was $12.1 billion.  This
unobligated balance came from two sources.  First, $9.6 billion in
unobligated balances exists because the Congress annually imposed an
obligation limit during the ISTEA period to control spending for most
federal highway funding categories.  Second, another $2.5 billion in
unobligated authority remains for a few highway funding categories
that were exempt from the obligation limitation.  The two largest
exempted programs were minimum allocation ($0.65 billion) and
demonstration projects ($1.85 billion). 

From a national perspective, the total unobligated highway balance of
$12.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 (including program
funds exempt from obligation limits) is nearly 1.5 times the $8.1
billion that all states obligated during the first 6 months of fiscal
year 1997.  This does not mean, however, that each state's
unobligated balance is greater than its obligations during the first
6 months of fiscal year 1997.  FHWA's data show that the unobligated
balances for each of 14 states fall short by 1 percent to 30 percent
or by $1 million to almost $82 million of its actual obligations
during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997.  Several states were
in the 20 to 30 percent range.  For example, Indiana's total
unobligated balance is over $80 million less than its total highway
obligations during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1997.  This
represents about a 28-percent difference.  Similarly, North
Carolina's total unobligated balance is about $94 million less than
the amount it obligated during this same period in fiscal year
1997--a difference of about 26 percent.  (App.  I provides a
state-by-state comparison of the fiscal year 1998 unobligated balance
of $9.6 billion (from highway programs subject to the obligation
limit) to actual state obligations during the first 4 through 7
months of fiscal year 1997.  App.  II provides a similar comparison
based on the combined total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion.)

It is important to note that these comparisons imply that the state's
obligation rates for fiscal year 1997 correspond to those for fiscal
year 1998, which may or may not be the case for individual states. 
Furthermore, the total unobligated balance of $12.1 billion includes
balances from programs that were not subject to the obligation
limitation.  As of October 1, 1997, seven states had little or no
unobligated balances in these program categories. 


   STRATEGIES THAT COULD HELP THE
   STATES IN THE SHORT-TERM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

A number of strategies could help the states get through a short
period without a new highway funding authorization.  At the federal
level, the Congress could provide the states with the flexibility to
use their unobligated balances across the range of federal highway
programs, rather than keeping the balances generally tied to specific
highway programs and demonstration projects.  At the state level,
some states may be able to obtain state, local, or private resources
to begin projects and later seek federal reimbursement for these
costs through advance construction authority. 


      FLEXIBILITY NEEDED IF
      UNOBLIGATED BALANCES ARE TO
      BE FULLY USED IN THE SHORT
      TERM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

The unobligated balance of $9.6 billion (from programs subject to the
obligation limit) represents the sum of the unobligated balances
remaining from specific programs, such as the Interstate Maintenance,
National Highway System, Surface Transportation, and CMAQ programs. 
These balances may now generally be obligated in accordance with the
individual program categories. 

Throughout the ISTEA period, the obligation limits acted to control
"total" obligations, thus leaving the states discretion to decide how
they would use their obligation authority across the range of
specific federal-aid highway programs.  For example, in a particular
year, a state could have opted to obligate all of its available
National Highway System funds, but it would have had to make up for
its full use of these funds by obligating less in another funding
category, such as the CMAQ program. 

Differences in the priorities that the states assigned to different
highway programs are now reflected in significant variances in the
unobligated balances that remain from ISTEA authorizations for these
programs.  For example, the National Highway System had a total
unobligated balance of over $426 million at the beginning of fiscal
year 1998, which represents only about 13 percent of the total fiscal
year 1997 apportionment for this program.  In comparison, the Surface
Transportation program started fiscal year 1998 with an unobligated
balance of $4.2 billion, or nearly half of the fiscal year 1997
apportionment for this program.  Furthermore, the CMAQ program had an
unobligated balance of $1 billion, or 108 percent of the fiscal year
1997 apportionment for this program.  Because of the variances in the
unobligated balances remaining across federal highway programs, these
balances may not be consistent with state funding priorities or
projects that the states planned for this year. 

To identify any problems that the states might have in using their
unobligated balances and to identify strategies that the states may
use to help them respond to the absence of new federal highway funds
in the short term, we contacted nine states--Arkansas, Connecticut,
Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.  These differed in the extent to which they expected
that their unobligated federal highway balances would help them
respond to any short-term absence of new federal highway funds. 
Several of the states did note that the usefulness of these
unobligated balances will be somewhat limited because they are tied
to specific programs.  For instance, a Missouri transportation
finance and budget manager estimated that in early fiscal year 1998,
the state will be able to use only $50 million of its total of $169
million in unobligated funds because the balance of the money is for
categories such as CMAQ or transportation enhancements in which the
state does not have projects ready to go.  Similarly, the
Transportation Director of Program Management for New York commented
that it is very difficult to say exactly when the state will use its
unobligated balance because some of this money is limited to programs
that (1) are not a state priority or (2) do not have projects that
are ready to go. 

If the Congress were to enact legislation that would give the states
the flexibility to use unobligated balances interchangeably among
federal highway programs, then some states would be better positioned
to more fully use their unobligated federal highway funds.  In
addition, while minimum allocation funding can be used for numerous
federal highway programs, demonstration project funds must be used
only for the specific projects for which the funds were authorized
under current law.  These demonstration project funds, which
generally were not subject to the obligation limits, ended fiscal
year 1997 with a total unobligated balance of about $1.9 billion.  If
the Congress were to provide the states with the flexibility to use
program as well as demonstration project funds to meet other highway
program needs, a later reauthorization could provide for
reimbursement to the borrowed fund account. 


      STATES MAY HAVE TO RELY MORE
      ON STATE FUNDING FOR
      HIGHWAYS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

Federal highway funding represents one of the many financial sources
used to support the nation's highways.  The Department of
Transportation's statistics indicate that the revenue available for
highways totaled $92.5 billion in 1995, the latest year for which
data are available.  About $59.6 billion of this revenue came from
highway user taxes--$18.3 billion from federal highway user taxes,
$39.3 from state highway user taxes, and $2 billion from local
highway user taxes.  The balance came from a variety of sources, such
as $5.1 billion from property taxes and assessments and $7.6 billion
from bond receipts. 

To compensate for the lack of new federal highway funds being
available for part of fiscal year 1998, some states may be able to
fund a proportionately larger share of their planned highway projects
in early fiscal year 1998 with state funds.  Later in fiscal year
1998, these states could use the federal funds made available to
them.  This assumes that at some unspecified time in fiscal year
1998, new federal highway funds will be available; however, this
uncertainty poses problems for some states.  A few of the nine states
we contacted noted that they would be postponing highway projects if
new federal funds are not available within the next few months. 

The states also differ in their ability to provide greater funding in
fiscal year 1998.  For instance, the Commissioner of North Dakota's
Department of Transportation stated that the disastrous flood this
year left North Dakota without any additional state funds to pay for
highway projects.  In contrast, Indiana's Deputy Commissioner for
Finance stated that the state does not face a financial crisis in
early fiscal year 1998.  He noted that Indiana's Department of
Transportation has, if necessary, the ability to use $600 million in
bonding authority to begin projects in fiscal year 1998.  However, if
the states draw on their own resources, they may have to delay other
planned projects.  Also, this short-term solution could have a
defined payback period.  For instance, a Missouri transportation
official noted that the state expects to award highway contracts
through December 1997, using $100 million of state funds.  He noted
that this state money will be borrowed from other state programs and
must be returned to the other accounts by June 30, 1998, the end of
the state's fiscal year. 

One financial tool that may help some states is advance construction. 
Under advance construction, a state can begin a highway project by
obtaining capital from a variety of sources, including its own funds
and private capital, and later receive reimbursement through federal
highway obligations.  Indiana's Deputy Commissioner for Finance
stated that without new federal funds, Indiana will begin its highway
program using advance construction with state funding.  New York also
indicated that it would turn to advance construction to help with its
highway financing.  The New York Transportation Director of Program
Management remarked that he expects to keep the state's planned
highway projects on schedule in early fiscal year 1998 through the
use of advance construction.  He stated that New York will use state
money to keep the projects on schedule and then backfill with federal
funds once a new authorization is passed. 

In July 1997, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conducted a survey to determine the
possible effects of a delay in the reauthorization of the federal
surface transportation program on state transportation programs. 
Many states reported to AASHTO that they would use advance
construction to continue operations and project schedules.  However,
AASHTO noted that advance construction will not help some states that
have already heavily relied on this technique. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my testimony.  I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have. 


UNOBILIGATED FEDERAL HIGHWAY
BALANCES (SUBJECT TO THE
OBLIGATION LIMITATION) COMPARED
WITH FISCAL YEAR 1997 OBLIGATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                  (Dollars in thousands)

                      Difference        Difference        Difference        Difference
                       between           between           between           between
                     unobligated       unobligated       unobligated       unobligated
                    balance and FY    balance and FY    balance and FY    balance and FY
                     1997 4-month      1997 5-month      1997 6-month      1997 7-month
                   obligation total  obligation total  obligation total  obligation total
                   ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
         Unobliga
              ted
          balance
          subject
               to
         obligati
         on limit
            as of
           10/01/            Percen            Percen            Percen            Percen
State          97    Amount       t    Amount       t    Amount       t    Amount       t
-------  --------  --------  ------  --------  ------  --------  ------  --------  ------
Alabama  $142,290   $70,523      98   $54,933      63   $18,011      14         -      -9
                                                                          $13,762
Alaska     94,192    59,601     172    12,980      16    -5,331      -5   -19,351     -17
Arizona   144,747    61,638      74    48,153      50    35,920      33    27,297      23
Arkansa    87,129   -11,524     -12   -28,961     -25   -32,323     -27   -40,468     -32
 s
Califor   816,665   535,661     191   494,274     153   406,101      99   215,761      36
 nia
Colorad   117,689    73,357     165    14,684      14    -1,177      -1   -28,065     -19
 o
Connect   166,353    11,568       7   -12,887      -7   -32,651     -16         -     -41
 icut                                                                     117,730
Delawar    54,052    48,091     807    46,936     660    40,646     303    20,332      60
 e
Florida   225,197   136,682     154    75,480      50   -14,489      -6         -     -53
                                                                          258,506
Georgia   293,339   184,098     169   158,972     118   118,093      67    83,185      40
Hawaii    139,085        \a      \a        \a      \a        \a      \a        \a      \a
Idaho      50,407    22,596      81     5,743      13     5,457      12        39       0
Illinoi   255,153   146,891     136    82,100      47   -14,927      -6         -     -48
 s                                                                        236,031
Indiana   182,028    47,488      35   -50,888     -22         -     -36         -     -41
                                                        102,013           124,776
Iowa      115,924    13,004      13       415       0   -25,943     -18   -27,335     -19
Kansas    128,419    57,528      81    51,050      66    45,803      55    35,262      38
Kentuck   134,226    92,030     218    60,001      81    11,759      10   -12,999      -9
 y
Louisia   270,665   211,548     358   196,015     263   192,316     245   176,085     186
 na
Maine      48,887    16,706      52        57       0   -10,845     -18   -10,548     -18
Marylan   158,942   116,473     274    41,191      35    20,355      15   -29,096     -15
 d
Massach   793,225   614,708     344   374,672      90   298,761      60   256,679      48
 usetts
Michiga   217,146    93,236      75    52,661      32    11,239       5   -15,783      -7
 n
Minneso   178,687   141,349     379    38,120      27    28,273      19    16,178      10
 ta
Mississ   102,719    46,798      84    38,873      61     7,882       8    -6,233      -6
 ippi
Missour   168,587    26,114      18   -67,796     -29         -     -37         -     -40
 i                                                      100,490           111,528
Montana    88,072    73,364     499    41,622      90    33,642      62    13,022      17
Nebrask    77,809    47,919     160    39,276     102    -5,837      -7    -7,870      -9
 a
Nevada     55,011    46,620     556    11,803      27    -1,210      -2    -3,184      -5
New        59,340    43,848     283    34,426     138    11,932      25     3,535       6
 Hampsh
 ire
New       274,799    85,692      45    41,416      18    28,863      12   -28,507      -9
 Jersey
New        69,402    44,746     181    42,160     155    38,298     123    24,543      55
 Mexico
New       477,584   123,935      35   -57,004     -11         -     -20         -     -24
 York                                                   121,836           154,403
North     214,972   -15,865      -7   -90,838     -30         -     -40         -     -45
 Caroli                                                 143,299           178,181
 na
North      50,447     5,887      13    -2,979      -6   -24,791     -33   -32,363     -39
 Dakota
Ohio      356,246   231,419     185   200,963     129   158,654      80    79,029      29
Oklahom   159,309    74,298      87    57,668      57    47,037      42    15,515      11
 a
Oregon     92,166    42,543      86    24,747      37    15,926      21      -397      -0
Pennsyl   456,826   325,819     249   298,829     189   213,084      87    84,355      23
 vania
Rhode      65,379    51,918     386    36,309     125    30,320      86    20,101      44
 Island
South     179,141   101,532     131    27,858      18    16,615      10     8,401       5
 Caroli
 na
South      69,729    12,996      23    -8,395     -11   -22,791     -25   -33,301     -32
 Dakota
Tenness   196,644    67,328      52    20,013      11   -22,553     -10   -81,974     -29
 ee
Texas     619,695   193,004      45   136,984      28    58,399      10   -25,147      -4
Utah       89,670    66,048     280    35,048      64    27,477      44    18,313      26
Vermont    71,618    58,166     432    50,025     232    36,629     105    26,728      60
Virgini   212,321    99,361      88    68,801      48    28,694      16     2,329       1
 a
Washing   204,873   167,859     454    87,103      74    68,522      50      -493      -0
 ton
West      120,166    84,653     238    37,892      46    12,857      12   -13,368     -10
 Virgin
 ia
Wiscons   163,333   -10,469      -6   -63,820     -28   -74,008     -31   -82,887     -34
 in
Wyoming    53,579     7,042      15    -6,478     -11   -15,180     -22   -23,071     -30
Total    $9,563,8  $4,987,2     109  $2,893,6      43  $1,295,8      16         -      -6
               84        72                16                71          $590,668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1:  Bold type indicates that previous obligations exceed the
unobligated balance. 

Note 2:  The comparison represents data for the states only and does
not include data for the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North Marianas. 

\a Not available. 

Source:  GAO's analysis based on FHWA's data. 


UNOBLIGATED FEDERAL HIGHWAY
BALANCES (SUBJECT TO THE
OBLIGATION LIMITATION AND EXEMPT)
COMPARED WITH FISCAL YEAR 1997
OBLIGATIONS
========================================================== Appendix II

                                (Dollars in thousands)

                 Difference        Difference        Difference        Difference
                  between           between           between           between
                unobligated       unobligated       unobligated       unobligated
               balance and FY    balance and FY    balance and FY    balance and FY
                1997 4-month      1997 5-month      1997 6-month      1997 7-month
              obligation total  obligation total  obligation total  obligation total
              ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
       Total
    unobliga
         ted
     balance
St     as of
at    10/01/            Percen            Percen            Percen            Percen
e         97    Amount       t    Amount       t    Amount       t    Amount       t
--  --------  --------  ------  --------  ------  --------  ------  --------  ------
Al  $198,888  $127,121     177  $111,531     128   $74,609      60   $42,836      27
 a
 b
 a
 m
 a
Al    94,192    59,601     172    12,980      16    -5,331      -5   -19,351     -17
 a
 s
 k
 a
Ar   184,093   100,984     122    87,499      91    75,266      69    66,643      57
 i
 z
 o
 n
 a
Ar   153,005    54,352      55    36,915      32    33,553      28    25,408      20
 k
 a
 n
 s
 a
 s
Ca  1,091,52   810,523     288   769,136     239   680,963     166   490,623      82
 l         7
 i
 f
 o
 r
 n
 i
 a
Co   117,689    73,357     165    14,684      14    -1,177      -1   -28,065     -19
 l
 o
 r
 a
 d
 o
Co   167,954    13,169       9   -11,286      -6   -31,050     -16         -     -41
 n                                                                   116,129
 n
 e
 c
 t
 i
 c
 u
 t
De    54,052    48,091     807    46,936     660    40,646     303    20,332      60
 l
 a
 w
 a
 r
 e
Fl   298,813   210,298     238   149,096     100    59,127      25         -     -38
 o                                                                   184,890
 r
 i
 d
 a
Ge   487,021   377,780     346   352,654     262   311,775     178   276,867     132
 o
 r
 g
 i
 a
Ha   148,605        \a      \a        \a      \a        \a      \a        \a      \a
 w
 a
 i
 i
Id    82,813    55,002     198    38,149      85    37,863      84    32,445      64
 a
 h
 o
Il   284,971   176,709     163   111,918      65    14,891       6         -     -42
 l                                                                   206,213
 i
 n
 o
 i
 s
In   203,799    69,259      51   -29,117     -13   -80,242     -28         -     -34
 d                                                                   103,005
 i
 a
 n
 a
Io   136,787    33,867      33    21,278      18    -5,080      -4    -6,472      -5
 wa
Ka   147,075    76,184     107    69,706      90    64,459      78    53,918      58
 n
 s
 a
 s
Ke   157,586   115,390     273    83,361     112    35,119      29    10,361       7
 n
 t
 u
 c
 k
 y
Lo   339,687   280,570     475   265,037     355   261,338     334   245,107     259
 u
 i
 s
 i
 a
 n
 a
Ma    57,472    25,291      79     8,642      18    -2,260      -4    -1,963      -3
 i
 n
 e
Ma   166,683   124,214     292    48,932      42    28,096      20   -21,355     -11
 r
 y
 l
 a
 n
 d
Ma   799,910   621,393     348   381,357      91   305,446      62   263,364      49
 s
 s
 a
 c
 h
 u
 s
 e
 t
 t
 s
Mi   250,289   126,379     102    85,804      52    44,382      22    17,360       7
 c
 h
 i
 g
 a
 n
Mi   238,211   200,873     538    97,644      69    87,797      58    75,702      47
 n
 n
 e
 s
 o
 t
 a
Mi   116,125    60,204     108    52,279      82    21,288      22     7,173       7
 s
 s
 i
 s
 s
 i
 p
 p
 i
Mi   187,257    44,784      31   -49,126     -21   -81,820     -30   -92,858     -33
 s
 s
 o
 u
 r
 i
Mo    88,072    73,364     499    41,622      90    33,642      62    13,022      17
 n
 t
 a
 n
 a
Ne    84,959    55,069     184    46,426     120     1,313       2      -720      -1
 b
 r
 a
 s
 k
 a
Ne    55,012    46,621     556    11,804      27    -1,209      -2    -3,183      -5
 v
 a
 d
 a
Ne    63,770    48,278     312    38,856     156    16,362      35     7,965      14
 w
 H
 a
 m
 p
 s
 h
 i
 r
 e
Ne   331,142   142,035      75    97,759      42    85,206      35    27,836       9
 w
 J
 e
 r
 s
 e
 y
Ne    71,431    46,775     190    44,189     162    40,327     130    26,572      59
 w
 M
 e
 x
 i
 c
 o
Ne   529,008   175,359      50    -5,580      -1   -70,412     -12         -     -16
 w                                                                   102,979
 Y
 o
 r
 k
No   264,629    33,792      15   -41,181     -13   -93,642     -26         -     -33
 r                                                                   128,524
 t
 h
 C
 a
 r
 o
 l
 i
 n
 a
No    58,999    14,439      32     5,573      10   -16,239     -22   -23,811     -29
 r
 t
 h
 D
 a
 k
 o
 t
 a
Oh   495,754   370,927     297   340,471     219   298,162     151   218,537      79
 io
Ok   173,644    88,633     104    72,003      71    61,372      55    29,850      21
 l
 a
 h
 o
 m
 a
Or    98,712    49,089      99    31,293      46    22,472      29     6,149       7
 e
 g
 o
 n
Pe   968,126   837,119     639   810,129     513   724,384     297   595,655     160
 n
 n
 s
 y
 l
 v
 a
 n
 i
 a
Rh    85,502    72,041     535    56,432     194    50,443     144    40,224      89
 o
 d
 e
 I
 s
 l
 a
 n
 d
So   201,518   123,909     160    50,235      33    38,992      24    30,778      18
 u
 t
 h
 C
 a
 r
 o
 l
 i
 n
 a
So    74,690    17,957      32    -3,434      -4   -17,830     -19   -28,340     -28
 u
 t
 h
 D
 a
 k
 o
 t
 a
Te   225,294    95,978      74    48,663      28     6,097       3   -53,324     -19
 n
 n
 e
 s
 s
 e
 e
Te   770,416   343,725      81   287,705      60   209,120      37   125,574      19
 x
 a
 s
Ut    92,600    68,978     292    37,978      70    30,407      49    21,243      30
 ah
Ve    88,085    74,633     555    66,492     308    53,096     152    43,195      96
 r
 m
 o
 n
 t
Vi   333,797   220,837     196   190,277     133   150,170      82   123,805      59
 r
 g
 i
 n
 i
 a
Wa   204,887   167,873     454    87,117      74    68,536      50      -479      -0
 s
 h
 i
 n
 g
 t
 o
 n
We   307,110   271,597     765   224,836     273   199,801     186   173,576     130
 st
 V
 i
 r
 g
 i
 n
 i
 a
Wi   181,199     7,397       4   -45,954     -20   -56,142     -24   -65,021     -26
 s
 c
 o
 n
 s
 i
 n
Wy    53,579     7,042      15    -6,478     -11   -15,180     -22   -23,071     -30
 o
 m
 i
 n
 g
To  $12,066,  $7,489,8     164  $5,396,1      81  $3,942,3      49  $2,055,7      21
 t       439        27                71                19                20
 a
 l
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1:  Bold type indicates that previous obligations exceed the
unobligated balance. 

Note 2:  The comparison represents data for the states only and does
not include data for the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North Marianas. 

\a Not available. 

Source:  GAO's analysis based on FHWA's data. 


*** End of document. ***