The departments were representative of metropolitan, county, and State traffic enforcement agencies throughout the country. Each department was aksed to respond to 18 questions and add comments, insights, and data which might be helpful to other departments. The questions concerned the seriousness of the fuel problem; measures taken to accommodate higher fuel costs; and changes in equipment configuration, operational deployment, and doctrine. For the majority, fuel costs were the second highest budget item (after salaries), although few were willing to give up the standard-sized patrol car of the mid-seventies because of its safety and high performance. Those agencies that had experimented with compacts often found that fuel savings did not materialize; light bars and prisoner fences didn't fit; trunks were too small; too much weight in the back resulted in problems during pursuit; and front end alignment and suspension problems developed. Agencies reported such innovations as mandatory car pools, carefully worked-out stationary patrol schedules at high-visibility and accident locations, fuel-saving small-car administrative fleets, highly sophisticated programs to track and audit fuel use by individual driver and car, and training programs in fuel-efficient driving. Computers were used to monitor daily fuel consumption, shift gallonage in storage, and reallocate and reorder at predetermined levels. A vehicle maintenance and fueling check list provides practical advice on fuel conservation through such practices as cutting back on engine idle time, de-clutching fans, installing no slip automatic transmissions and low-drag light bars, using economy rear-end gear ratios or overdrive for turnpike patrol, and increasing tire pressures. The questionnaire data is not detailed, and references are not provided.