transport because of Soviet recalcitrance in sharing ice transiting technology. Bridge and Tunnel Construction A number of delegation exchanges in this area took place during 1974-1979. Most of the bridge technology in the Soviet Union was no further advanced than the then current U. S. bridge technology. There was some innovative work which our specialists recognized as having originated in Western Europe. We noted two exceptions: the excellent work on welding technology being done at the Paton Institute in Kiev and construction in Arctic areas. Our efforts to obtain specially developed fluxes from Paton were frustrated by administrative red tape as the Institute was not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport Construction, the Federal Highway Administration's designated cooperating counterpart. Equally disappointing, but being slowly overcome in 1979, were our efforts to exchange welding samples with the Paton Institute through DOT's participation in the Metallurgy Working Group under the US-USSR Science and Technology Agreement. In the tunneling area, we found the Soviets were struggling with the same problems we faced and were willing to cooperate actively to find solutions. We organized a program of exchanges on results of tunnel stress measurements in three types of ground conditions. About the time in 1979 when exchanges were curtailed for political reasons, we were no longer able to pursue the program since the tunneling program in DOT was phased out. Cooperative activities in this area have contributed to sales to Soviets of U.S. tunneling equipment, particularly large tunnel boring machines. Rail An active and beneficial program of exchanges of delegations on electrification; cold climate operations; freight management; track design and maintenance; locomotive and other rail car design; rolling stock; and human factors was carried out. Relationships between the Federal Railroad Administration and the Ministry of Railways were especially warm, contributing to the success of the program. Many rail industry officials participated in the delegation exchanges and found the research and operational experiences interesting and rewarding as there is no other developed country with the vast expanse of rail network and high axle loadings with whom we are able to exchange technical information based on operational experience. Highway Safety After several orientation visit exchanges on highway and traffic safety research and design, the Soviets proposed that annual symposiums on highway safety matters be scheduled. Two such conferences were held in 1978 and 1979. Our specialists were impressed with Soviet hands-on training programs for children, their efforts to improve vehicle and highway safety design, and methods of enforcement of traffic safety rules. Soviet specialists tested a U.S.designed Drunk Driving Warning System using their easily-controlled vehicular pools as the testing population, but the results of their tests were inconclusive. Contacts with Soviet officials have led to U.S. sales of highway traffic safety equipment. Urban Transport After a couple of interesting meetings of this working group in the Soviet Union in 1975 and in the United States in 1976, where briefings were held on urban transport planning and operations, the U.S. side decided that technical exchanges would not be possible due to a mismatch in basic purposes of the assigned counterpart organizations. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration is charged with improving and advancing mass transit technology while responsibilities of the Soviet (RSFSR) Ministry of Households and Communal Economy in the transportation area are primarily focused on planning and operating urban systems. The Joint Committee approved the U.S. proposal that further work under this group be canceled and exchanges on urban R&D topics of mutual interest be carried out under the Transport of the Future working group. Transport of the Future This group was established by the Joint Committee following agreements reached during the Nixon-Brezhnev Summit meeting in 1974 to share information on magnetic levitation (mag/lev) high-speed rail technology. Shortly after the first meeting of the working group, DOT research funds for the program were severely curtailed by the Office of Management and Budget. Several working group meetings were held, primarily during Joint Committee sessions. Our specialists shared U. S. technology developed up to that time and received in return technical briefings from Ministry of Rail officials on research completed and planned. The 1979 U. S. Delegation to the Joint Committee meeting learned that the most advanced mag/lev technology was being developed by an institute under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Oil and Gas. After some difficulties, meetings were finally arranged with this Ministry and minimal information was gained concerning a test site near Moscow where Soviets hoped to gain knowledge to build a prototype system in Alma-Ata. Early in January 1980, a return Soviet Delegation scheduled for February was canceled by the U. S. side. Trade Documentation At Soviet suggestion during the 1974 JC meeting, a working group was established in this area to work toward simplifying shipping data, forms, lists, and to recommend solutions for resolving other administrative document-oriented problems arising in international trade. Good progress was made in understanding each country's system and requirements; discussions on recommended improvements and changes were held during working group meetings. Due to a realignment of functions in DOT and the realization that the work being done was essentially duplicative of that being undertaken in international forums, the Joint Committee at its 1979 meeting accepted the U.S. proposal that this working group be discontinued. Hazardous Materials Transport At the suggestion of the U. S. side, the Joint Committee established a working group in this area at its 1977 meeting. U.S. specialists were interested in exchanging information on gas pipeline safety and other matters regarding safety designs for hazardous cargo. After repeated requests to get the program moving, a working group meeting was finally held during the 1979 JC session in Moscow. An ambitious program of exchanges was developed, but the U. S. side was unable to schedule other meetings. Participants and Costs The number of visits peaked in the years between 1975-79 and fell sharply after January 1980. The only meetings held since January 1980 were in the civil aviation navigation systems areas. The annual number of participants from 1974 through 1983 were: 81, 147, 120, 79, 72, 29, 5, 6, 18, and 3. Annual costs for Agreement activities are not known. As DOT does not have a separate appropriation for carrying out international programs and activities, bilateral exchanges must be funded from research program funds and justified on that basis. Delegation visits are carried out on a "sending-side-pays" basis. Funds for travel and miscellaneous costs are derived from research budgets of the Office of the Secretary and participating modal administrations. To save costs, DOT specialists and officials who traveled to the Soviet Union scheduled multi-country visits in Europe when possible to fulfill responsibilities connected with other Departmental bilateral or multilateral programs. Many interested private industries, transport associations, and academic institutions supported costs for their representatives to travel to the Soviet Union as members of U. S. delegations. Assessment and Future Plans Overall, Department officials believe the benefits gained under the lapsed Agreement were essentially worthwhile and well-balanced. While the applicable value of technology gained varied widely among general areas and topics, all information exchanged on transport research, development, operational experience was, in itself, a decided plus. The Agreement provided a mechanism for keeping abreast of new developments in each country and opened avenues for promoting sales of U.S. transport and transport-related equipment and technology. As cooperative activities proceeded and benefits assessed, programs of exchanges were streamlined and made more effective by efforts on both sides to focus on specific areas which held promise for maximum mutual benefit with minimum problems of access. Based on informal expressions of interest on both sides during the past year in renewing bilateral exchanges, particularly in the civil aviation area, and in light of movements toward expanding U.S.Soviet contacts across a wide spectrum of areas both before and after the November 1985 Summit, the Department of State, with DOT's support and the approval of the Administration, formally invited Soviet representatives to visit the United States for discussions on renewing the Agreement. We await their response. DOT specialists strongly recommend renewing technical bilateral exchanges on new aviation navigation systems - now being developed and in the approval process for adoption as world standards by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Close cooperation with Soviets and other East European countries will substantially further national and international goals for aviation safety well into the next century. While DOT officials are not certain any additional technical gains in other modal areas are possible, they are willing to explore possibilities within budgetary limitations. Enclosed please find the report you requested on cooperative activities under the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Agriculture. I concur with the report's conclusions that the program reflects a balance of United States and Soviet interests and benefits. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is interested in continuing the program under the Agreement at approximately the current level. Thank you for your interest in our programs. If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Sincerely, しい DANIEL G. AYSTUTZ Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs Enclosures |