Eligibility for Interstate Maintenance (IM) funding is governed by the following:

23 U.S.C. 119(a) permits the Secretary to approve IM funded projects for resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating routes on the Interstate System designated under section 103 and 139(c) of Title 23, and routes designated prior to March 9, 1984, under sections 139(a) and 139(b) of Title 23.

Section 119(c) of Title 23 describes types of work eligible for IM funding. The section has been interpreted to include as eligible, those work items which provide for 3R work on existing features on the Interstate route and its interchanges and grade separations within normal "touchdown limits". For example, the rehabilitation of existing roadside hardware may include IM funding for work such as bringing old guardrail up to current standards, maintenance of impact attenuators, refurbishing existing traffic control signs and other devices, etc. However, excluded from eligibility for IM funding are all new work elements, such as new interchanges, new ramps, new rest areas, new noise walls, or other work which does not resurface, restore or rehabilitate an existing element.

Existing bridges (including over crossing structures) may be replaced with IM funds, provided they meet the structurally deficient criteria of the bridge program. Bridges classified as functionally obsolete may also be replaced with IM funding, except that capacity expansion elements should be subject to the limitations discussed in the following paragraphs.

Section 119(g) prohibits IM funding for the portion of the cost of any project attributable to the expansion of the capacity of any Interstate highway or bridge, except for the addition of high-occupancy vehicle lanes or auxiliary lanes (such as truck climbing lanes).

In determining what portion of a project is eligible for IM funding and what portion is capacity expansion (and, therefore, not eligible for IM funds), the basic purpose of the project should be considered. If the project is a combination of preservation and capacity expansion, the cost should be split, with 3R items eligible for IM funding, and capacity expansion items eligible for other funds. In determining the split, it may be helpful to visualize the project without the capacity expansion work (added lanes, bridge widening or extension for example), and allow IM funding for all necessary 3R items.

This provision has been extended administratively to allow IM funding for other preventative maintenance activities. Examples may include structure work such as crack sealing, joint repair, seismic retrofit, scour countermeasures, and painting of steel members which are cost-effective in extending the service life of the structure.

Original signed by:
Anthony R. Kane

This Policy Memorandum was Canceled June 23, 1999.

FHWA Home | Directives | Policy Memos | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration