In 1998, with the Interstate System essentially complete, FHWA's Office of Engineering compiled information about development of the program. In making this information available to the public, we have not updated the material. All information is as of 1998 when the Office of Engineering compiled the report.

Background

The following table shows annual and accumulated Interstate Construction fund authorizations from authorizing legislation. Starting with FY 1957, authorizations were contained in Section 108(b) of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956. Later authorizations were made in subsequent legislation by amending Section 108(b). The table does not reflect reductions to these authorizations due to rescissions or other similar legislation.

Annual Authorizations of Interstate Construction Funds

Fiscal Year	Annual Authorization	Accumulated Authorization	Authorizing Legislation
1954	25	25	F.A. Hwy Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413)
1955	25	50	F.A. Hwy Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413)
1956	175	225	F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350)
1957	175 1,000	1,400	F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350) F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627)
1958	1,700	3,100	F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627)
1959	2,200	5,300	F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381)
1960	2,500	7,800	F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381)
1961	1,800	9,600	F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
1962	2,200	11,800	F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627)
1963	2,400	14,200	F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
1964	2,600	16,800	F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
1965	2,700	19,500	F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
1966	2,800	22,300	F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61)
1967	3,000	25,300	P.L. 89-139
1968	3,400	28,700	F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574)
1969	3,800	32,500	F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574)
1970	4,000	36,500	F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
1971	4,000	40,500	F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
1972	4,000	44,500	F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
1973	4,000	48,500	F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495)
1974	2,600	51,100	F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
1975	3,000	54,100	F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
1976	3,000	57,100	F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
1977	3,250	60,350	F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
1978	3,250	63,600	F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
1979	3,250	66,850	F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87)
1980	3,250	70,100	1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599)
1981	3,500	73,600	1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599)
1982	3,500	77,100	1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599)
1983	3,100	80,200	F.A. Hwy Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-134)
1984	4,000	84,200	1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
1985	4,000	88,200	1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
1986	4,000	92,200	1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
1987	4,000	96,200	1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424)
1988	3,000	99,200	1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
1989	3,150	102,350	1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
1990	3,150	105,500	1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
1991	3,150	108,650	1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
1992	3,150	111,800	1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17)
1993	1,800	113,600	1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)
1994	1,800	115,400	1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)
1995	1,800	117,200	1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)
1996	1,800	119,000	1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240)

Annual Authorizations of Interstate Construction Funds Legislative History

FY 1954 -The F.A. Highway Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413), in Section 2, authorized $25 million for FY 1954.

FY 1955 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-413), in Section 2, authorized $25 million for FY 1955.

FY 1956 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350), in Section 2(a), authorized $175 million for FY 1956.

FY 1957 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-350), in Section 2(a), authorized $175 million for FY 1957. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized an additional $1,000 million Total Authorization $1,175 million

FY 1958 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $1,700 million for FY 1958.

FY 1959 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,000 million for FY 1959. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381), in Sect. 7(a), increased the amount to $2,200 million.

FY 1960 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1960. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381), in Section 7(a), increased the amount to $2,500 million.

FY 1961 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1961. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-381), in Section 7(a), increased the amount to $2,500 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, decreased the amount to $1,800 million.

FY 1962 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1962.

FY 1963 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1963. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,400 million.

FY 1964 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1964. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,600 million.

FY 1965 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1965. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,700 million.

FY 1966 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1966. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,800 million.

FY 1967 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $2,200 million for FY 1967. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $2,900 million. -P.L. 89-139, in Section 1, increased the amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1968 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $1,500 million for FY 1968. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $3,000 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,400 million.

FY 1969 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627), in Section 108(b), authorized $1,025 million for FY 1969. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, increased the amount to $3,000 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,800 million.

FY 1970 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, authorized $3,000 million for FY 1970. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,600 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, increased the amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1971 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, authorized $2,885 million for FY 1971. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, increased the amount to $3,600 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, increased the amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1972 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-61), in Section 103, authorized $2,885 million for FY 1972. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-574), in Section 2, decreased the amount to $2,685 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, increased the amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1973 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, authorized $4,000 million for FY 1973.

FY 1974 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-495), in Section 2, authorized $2,225 million for FY 1974. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605), in Section 102, increased the amount to $4,000 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, decreased the amount to $2,600 million.

FY 1975 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605), in Section 102, authorized $4,000 million for FY 1975. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, decreased the amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1976 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605), in Section 102, authorized $4,000 million for FY 1976. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, decreased the amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1977 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, authorized $3,250 million for FY 1977.

FY 1978 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, authorized $3,250 million for FY 1978.

FY 1979 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87), in Section 102, authorized $3,250 million for FY 1979.

FY 1980 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1980. -The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,250 million.

FY 1981 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1981. -The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,500 million.

FY 1982 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1982. -The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,500 million.

FY 1983 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1983. -The 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599), in Section 102(a), decreased this amount to $3,200 million. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-134), in Sect. 4(a), decreased this amount to $3,100 million.

FY 1984 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1984. -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-327), in Section 2, decreased this amount to $3,225 million. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1985 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1985. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1986 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1986. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1987 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1987. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million.

FY 1988 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1988. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million. -The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, decreased this amount to $3,000 million.

FY 1989 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1989. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million. -The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, decreased this amount to $3,150 million.

FY 1990 -The F.A. Hwy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280), in Section 102(a), authorized $3,625 million for FY 1990. -The 1982 STAA (P.L. 97-424), in Section 102, increased this amount to $4,000 million. -The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, decreased this amount to $3,150 million.

FY 1991 -The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, authorized $3,150 million for FY 1991.

FY 1992 -The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, authorized $3,150 million for FY 1992.

FY 1993 -The 1987 STURAA (P.L. 100-17), in Section 104, authorized $1,400 million for FY 1993. -The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), increased this amount to $1,800 million.

FY 1994 -The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), authorized $1,800 million for FY 1994

FY 1995 -The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), authorized $1,800 million for FY 1995

FY 1996 -The 1991 ISTEA (P.L. 102-240), in Section 1001(f), authorized $1,800 million for FY 1996

Basis for Apportioning Interstate Construction Funds

Background

In the first years of the Interstate Construction (IC) program (FY 1954 and FY 1955) Congress specified that IC funds be distributed to the States using the existing Federal-Aid Primary (FAP) program formula. For FY 1956 through 1959 Congress specified IC funds be apportioned one-half in the ratio of each State's population bears to total U.S. population and one-half based on the FAP formula.

In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress first called for preparation of an official Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) and provided that IC funds would be apportioned thereafter to the States in the proportion of each State's share of the total cost of completing the Interstate System. Starting with the FY 1960 IC funds, the cost-to-complete factors developed in the ICE's were used for apportioning IC funds based on a series of 15 updated estimates. Prior to each IC apportionment, Congress would approve (in law) the ICE factors to be used for the next IC apportionment(s). This system worked satisfactorily until the later years of the program when IC funds were often apportioned late because Congress had not approved the latest ICE factors. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 addressed the problem and directed the Secretary to administratively adjust the latest ICE and make apportionments for FY 1988 through 1992, whenever Congress had not approved an ICE. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 continued the administrative adjustment process through the final apportionment for FY 1996.

One-Half Percent Minimum Apportionments

The IC funds authorized in the early years (FY 1954 through FY 1959) of the program were distributed to the States by formula based on the then existing formula for the Federal-Aid Primary program (FY 1954 and FY 1955) and in combination with population (FY 1956 through FY 1959). For FY 1957, FY 1958, and FY 1959, the 1956 Act provided for a minimum apportionment for the portion of the apportioned funds attributed to the population element in the formula.

There was no further provision for minimum apportionments until the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 which provided in Section 105(b)(1) that no State would receive less than one-half percent of the IC funds apportioned. This provision was used in apportioning IC funds for FY 1972 through FY 1992. The minimum apportionment provision was eliminated by the 1991 ISTEA.

Interstate Gap Closing Funds

Section 102(b)(1) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 provided that at least 30 percent of the IC apportionment made to each State for FY 1978 and FY 1979 must be expended by each State for the construction of intercity portions (including beltways) which would close essential gaps in the System. A State which did not have sufficient projects to meet the 30 percent requirement was exempted from the requirement upon approval of the Secretary.

The 30 percent requirement was not continued in subsequent legislation.

Interstate Discretionary (ID) Funds

Section 115(a) of the 1978 STAA (P.L. 95-599) amended Section 118(b) of Title 23 providing that sums of IC funds not obligated within their availability period must be made available by the Secretary to any other State applying for the funds for use in completing the Interstate System.

Section 115(a) of the 1982 STAA modified 23 U.S.C. 118(b) by proving criteria for allocating ID funds (first to high-cost gap projects and second to projects of high cost in relation to a State's IC apportionment) and by providing the first setaside ($300 million annually) for the ID program.

The $300 million setaside was continued for each year through FY 1992. Section 1020(a) of the 1991 ISTEA reduced the setaside to $100 million annually for FY 1993 through FY 1996. The total ID funds from the set-aside provision totalled about $3.1 billion over the life of the program. Another $6.6 billion was distributed as ID funds as a result of lapses at the end of the availability period for IC funds, voluntary lapses (early) of IC funds, and IC fund apportionment declinations and turnbacks of unobligated IC funds.

As a result of these activities, approximately $9.8 billion has been allocated through the ID program to 41 States and Washington, D.C.

Massachusetts

As reported in the 1991 ICE, a major proportion (34%) of the remaining cost to complete the Interstate System nationally was attributed to the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/THT) project in Boston. In Section 1001(e) of the 1991 ISTEA, Congress removed Massachusetts from the ICE process and specified the amounts of IC funds to be apportioned to the State: $450 million for FY 1993, $800 million for FY 1994, $800 million for FY 1995, and $500 million for FY 1996.

Section 1020(a) of the 1991 ISTEA specified that Massachusetts would not be eligible for allocations of ID funds.

Basis for Annual Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds

Fiscal Year	Annual Authorization ($Millions)	Apportionment Method	Authorizing Legislation
1954	25	FAP Formula	Section 2, P.L. 82-413, F.A. Highway Act of 1952
1955	25	FAP Formula	Section 2, P.L. 82-413, F.A Highway Act of 1952
1956	175	Population and FAP Formula	Section 2, P.L. 83-350, F.A Highway Act of 1954
1957	175	Population and FAP Formula	Section 2, P.L. 83-350, F.A Highway Act of 1954
	1,000		Section 108(c), P.L. 84-627, F.A. Hwy Act of 1956
1958	1,700	Population and FAP Formula	Section 108(c), P.L. 84-627, F.A. Hwy Act of 1956
1959	2,200	Population and FAP Formula	Section 108(c), P.L. 84-627, F.A. Hwy Act of 1956
1960	2,500	1958 ICE, H.D. 300	Section 8, P.L. 85-381, F.A. Hwy Act of 1958
1961	1,800	1958 ICE, H.D. 300	Section 103, P.L. 86-342, F.A. Hwy Act of 1959
1962	2,200	1958 ICE, H.D. 300	Section 103, P.L. 86-342, F.A. Hwy Act of 1959
1963	2,400	1961 ICE, H.D. 49	Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
1964	2,600	1961 ICE, H.D. 49	Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
1965	2,700	1961 ICE, H.D. 49	Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
1966	2,800	1961 ICE, H.D. 49	Section 102, P.L. 87-61, F.A. Hwy Act of 1961
1967	3,000	1965 ICE, H.D. 42	Section 2, P.L. 89-139, 1965 Act
1968	3,400	1965 ICE, H.D. 42	Section 3, P.L. 89-574, F.A. Hwy Act of 1966
1969	3,800	1965 ICE, H.D. 42	Section 3, P.L. 89-574, F.A. Hwy Act of 1966
1970	4,000	1968 ICE, H.D. 199	Section 3, P.L. 90-495, F.A. Hwy Act of 1968
1971	4,000	1968 ICE, H.D. 199	Section 3, P.L. 90-495, F.A. Hwy Act of 1968
1972	4,000	1970 ICE, H.D. 91-317	Section 103, P.L. 91-605, F.A. Hwy Act of 1970
1973	4,000	1970 ICE, H.D. 91-317	Section 103, P.L. 91-605, F.A. Hwy Act of 1970
1974	2,600	1972 ICE, C.P. 92-29	Section 103, P.L. 93-87, F.A. Hwy Act of 1973
1975	3,000	1972 ICE, C.P. 92-29	Section 103, P.L. 93-87, F.A. Hwy Act of 1973
1976	3,000	1972 ICE, C.P. 92-29	Section 103, P.L. 93-87, F.A. Hwy Act of 1973
1977	3,250	1975 ICE, C.P. 94-14	Senate Concurrent Resolution 62 Passed 12/16/75
1978	3,250	1975 ICE (Rev), C.P. 94-38	Section 103, P.L. 94-280, F.A. Hwy Act of 1976
1979	3,250	1977 ICE (Rev), C.P. 95-16	House Concurrent Resolution 282 Passed 9/30/77
1980	3,250	1977 ICE (Rev), C.P. 95-49	Section 103, P.L. 95-599, 1978 STAA
1981	3,500	1979 ICE (Rev), C.P. 96-15	Section 1, P.L. 96-144
1982	3,500	1979 ICE (Rev), C.P. 96-15	Section 1, P.L. 96-144
1983	3,100	1981 ICE (Rev), C.P. 97-28	Section 2, P.L. 97-134, F.A. Hwy Act of 1981
1984	4,000	1981 ICE (Rev), C.P. 97-53	Section 3, P.L. 97-327, F.A. Hwy Act of 1982
1985	4,000	1983 ICE (Rev) C.P. 98-10	One-half: Section 1, P.L. 98-229
		1985 ICE (Rev) C.P. 99-2	Remainder: Section 1(a), P.L. 99-4
1986	4,000	1985 ICE (Rev) C.P. 99-2	Section 1(b), P.L. 99-4
1987	4,000	1985 ICE (Rev) C.P. 99-68	Section 1, P.L. 99-104
1988	3,000	1987 ICE (Rev) C.P. 100-5	Section 102(a), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
1989	3,150	1987 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
1990	3,150	1987 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
1991	3,150	1989 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
1992	3,150	1989 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 102(b)(2), P.L. 100-17, 1987 STURAA
1993	1,800	1991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 1001(d), P.L. 102-240, 1991 ISTEA
1994	1,800	1991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 1001(d), 1991 ISTEA
1995	1,800	1991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 1001(d), 1991 ISTEA
1996	1,800	1991 ICE (Admin Adjusted)	Section 1001(d), 1991 ISTEA

Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) -- Apportionment Factors

Background

As discussed in Part III, a series of 15 Congressionally mandated estimates of the cost to complete the Interstate System were developed and reported to Congress between 1958 and 1991. Separate cost estimates were prepared by each State and the remaining cost was computed. Additional funding needs were developed taking into account remaining work and funds already available to fund the Federal share of cost of the remaining work.

Using these State estimates of additional total and Federal funding needed to complete the system, a set of apportionment factors was developed as a key element of each cost estimate report. These factors were subsequently approved by Congress and used, without adjustments, for Interstate Construction (IC) fund apportionments through FY 1975. For FY 1976 through FY 1988, Congress required the latest ICE be updated to reflect recent apportionments, allocations, lapses, withdrawals, etc. and approved an adjusted set of factors for IC apportionment use. For FY 1989 through FY 1996, Congress provided for an FHWA administrative adjustment to the latest ICE factors for use, without further Congressional approval, to apportion IC funds. In addition, for FY 1972 through FY 1992, the factors were adjusted to provide for a minimum ½% IC apportionment to each State. See Part III for additional details on the ICE process.

A table containing the unadjusted factors reported to Congress for each State from the 15 mandated estimates is on the following page.

Interstate Construction Apportionment Factors - from Interstate Cost Estimate Reports to Congress

States	1958 ICE	1961 ICE	1965 ICE	1968 ICE	1970 ICE	1972 ICE	1975 ICE	1977 ICE	1979 ICE	1981 ICE	Redefined 1981 ICE	1983 ICE	1985 ICE	1987 ICE	1989 ICE	1991 ICE
Alabama	1.97	2.09	2.18	1.95	1.88	2.07	2.42	2.54	2.03	2.34	2.89	3.31	2.96	4.88	3.98	0.72
Alaska
Arizona	1.37	1.42	1.55	1.55	1.87	2.04	2.78	2.23	1.56	1.56	1.39	1.97	1.81	1.09
Arkansas	0.99	1.06	0.79	0.63	0.49	0.76	0.67	0.50	0.51	0.50	0.27
California	10.16	9.66	9.79	7.75	7.05	6.53	5.20	6.53	8.51	10.77	7.85	8.90	9.88	13.00	13.28	9.94
Colorado	0.78	1.34	1.21	1.43	1.65	2.08	2.34	2.03	1.52	2.12	2.04	1.78	1.91	2.40	2.28	0.74
Connecticut	1.22	1.43	2.12	1.85	2.62	2.91	3.48	2.76	2.62	3.23	2.37	3.18	2.32	3.56	4.39	0.61
Delaware	0.35	0.38	0.18	0.25	0.22	0.16
D. C.	0.99	1.45	1.34	1.88	1.83	2.43	4.96	2.85	1.29	0.90	1.03	0.83	0.62	1.52	1.53	1.57
Florida	2.59	2.10	2.21	1.76	2.56	3.17	3.40	3.02	4.67	4.34	5.75	6.96	8.32	6.25	3.64	1.02
Georgia	2.41	1.86	1.44	2.03	1.88	2.50	2.72	2.15	3.85	4.17	3.32	4.44	3.55	2.70	2.04	1.92
Hawaii	0.00	0.79	0.86	1.35	1.28	1.04	1.31	1.30	1.96	1.58	2.45	2.16	2.78	4.29	4.17	2.23
Idaho	0.69	0.47	0.59	0.74	0.35	0.45	0.45	0.40	0.35	0.39	0.49	0.71	0.87	1.06	0.05
Illinois	5.13	5.27	5.74	5.65	6.74	4.95	4.29	5.37	4.32	1.93	1.55	0.84	0.53	0.33
Indiana	2.88	2.50	2.20	2.00	1.42	1.21	0.94	0.89	1.43	1.25	0.68	0.29	0.45	0.78	0.15
Iowa	0.95	1.28	1.22	1.05	1.24	1.07	1.12	1.30	1.26	0.95	1.19	0.13	0.02
Kansas	0.90	0.78	0.75	0.83	1.06	1.21	1.43	1.20	0.89	0.81	0.83	0.67	0.45	0.18
Kentucky	1.76	2.06	2.09	1.75	1.41	1.48	2.03	2.14	1.82	2.41	0.77	2.01	2.43	0.85	0.96	0.69
Louisiana	2.64	2.92	2.54	2.48	3.04	3.04	3.86	3.05	3.23	3.62	5.80	4.55	5.65	4.92	2.84	0.55
Maine	0.51	0.48	0.45	0.70	0.49	0.53	0.28	0.15	0.19	0.13	0.15	0.12	0.06
Maryland	2.25	1.85	1.63	2.06	3.30	3.84	4.35	3.97	4.98	6.13	7.07	6.59	2.77	4.38	5.17	4.21
Massachusetts	2.79	2.16	2.18	2.58	3.52	3.12	0.05	3.18	1.82	2.14	3.29	2.18	4.11	7.78	29.16	34.10
Michigan	3.93	3.94	2.98	4.20	3.77	3.59	2.81	2.55	2.43	2.20	1.78	1.86	2.20	2.17	1.31	1.03
Minnesota	1.89	2.61	2.33	2.25	1.81	2.33	2.54	2.21	1.92	2.17	2.38	2.33	2.72	2.88	0.93	0.94
Mississippi	1.10	1.23	1.10	1.06	0.85	0.90	0.75	0.96	0.72	0.71	0.24	0.21	0.33	0.14
Missouri	2.85	2.58	2.43	1.99	2.04	1.92	1.80	2.01	1.75	1.57	1.05	0.60	0.28	0.17
Montana	1.14	0.95	1.02	1.94	1.16	1.03	0.97	0.81	0.75	0.40	0.53	0.48	0.32	0.17
Nebraska	0.62	0.59	0.57	0.43	0.25	0.15	0.05	0.18	0.18
Nevada	0.52	0.51	0.63	0.64	0.41	0.49	0.53	0.88	0.87	0.59	0.60	0.56	0.28	0.01
New Hampshire	0.55	0.45	0.48	0.57	0.46	0.44	0.70	0.40	0.28	0.26	0.33	0.33	0.24	0.24
New Jersey	3.24	2.63	2.64	2.88	2.62	2.83	2.82	2.17	2.84	2.70	3.79	3.82	3.80	4.22	5.40	5.72
New Mexico	1.20	1.01	1.20	1.06	0.91	0.93	0.94	0.96	1.43	0.69	0.37	0.19	0.13	1.00E-03
New York	4.95	4.79	5.11	4.92	7.09	3.86	3.70	5.10	4.51	4.47	5.59	6.76	9.30	0.45	0.78
North Carolina	0.54	0.83	0.92	1.34	1.73	1.83	2.14	1.94	1.86	1.50	0.89	1.14	1.46	2.12	1.59	1.48
North Dakota	0.44	0.45	0.47	0.62	0.24	0.16	0.01
Ohio	6.51	6.89	6.19	4.39	3.20	3.08	2.87	3.18	2.41	1.94	1.77	1.91	1.18	1.30	1.43	0.99
Oklahoma	0.91	1.22	1.05	0.77	0.73	0.73	0.43	0.72	0.58	0.84	0.76	0.74	0.62	0.49	0.24
Oregon	1.73	1.75	1.76	2.20	2.23	2.55	2.82	1.74	1.23	0.90	1.16	0.75	0.81	0.83	0.99	1.21
Pennsylvania	4.08	4.52	4.84	5.18	4.97	4.93	4.11	5.21	5.35	4.72	5.32	6.54	5.14	7.93	4.93	11.94
Rhode Island	0.47	0.37	0.56	0.53	1.05	0.90	0.60	0.92	1.23	1.39	2.21	0.19	0.02
South Carolina	0.82	0.87	0.65	1.11	0.72	0.83	0.70	1.01	1.29	1.43	1.40	1.28	1.43	1.08	0.37	0.64
South Dakota	0.42	0.66	0.91	0.59	0.48	0.36	0.21	0.17	0.24	0.12	0.06
Tennessee	2.97	2.55	2.18	2.50	1.20	1.39	2.40	1.99	2.17	2.30	1.54	0.64	0.44	0.40	0.34	0.15
Texas	4.52	4.57	5.04	5.04	4.01	4.60	4.41	5.05	4.66	5.84	4.54	5.25	5.66	5.47	3.62	2.13
Utah	0.94	1.46	1.53	1.46	1.39	1.17	1.20	1.10	1.56	1.25	1.71	2.13	2.08	1.79	0.13
Vermont	0.94	0.70	0.72	0.72	0.53	0.38	0.38	0.17	0.07	0.03	0.04
Virginia	4.24	3.07	3.11	2.42	2.59	4.36	5.09	4.08	3.53	3.53	3.75	4.05	4.52	2.97	1.11	4.74
Washington	1.81	2.11	2.43	2.96	2.99	3.60	3.28	3.11	3.72	4.15	3.58	4.45	4.87	4.72	3.18	6.12
West Virginia	1.25	1.52	2.30	2.49	3.06	2.31	2.32	2.25	2.04	1.81	2.82	2.13	0.67	0.50
Wisconsin	1.05	0.89	0.84	0.90	0.92	1.17	0.93	0.98	0.79	0.84	0.38	0.03	9.00E-03			4.63
Wyoming	1.04	0.97	0.99	0.60	0.72	0.57	0.42	0.63	0.81	0.44	0.24
TOTALS	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
ZERO STATES	(1)	(1)	(1)	(1)	(1)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(3)	(4)	(4)	(8)	(8)	(12)	(22)	(26)

Deferral of Interstate Construction Fund Apportionments

Legislative History

Section 102(b) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) provided for the Secretary to administratively adjust the Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) prior to making Interstate Construction (IC) fund apportionments to reflect credits, apportionments, allocations, lapses, withdrawals, transfers, etc. The section also included the following sentence:

If, before apportionment of funds under this subparagraph for any fiscal year, the Secretary and a State highway department agree that a portion of the apportionment to such State is not needed for such fiscal year, the amount of such portion shall be made available under Section 118(b)(2) of this title.

Under this provision a State could indicate it wished to decline receipt of part or all of an IC apportionment. The declination of the IC apportionment was actually a deferral since the amount of IC apportionment not received would be administratively taken into account in subsequent computations of IC apportionment factors. Each affected State would recover the declined apportionment in later years.

Actual Deferrals

There were only three instances of States declining (deferring) IC apportionments:

Massachusetts only accepted a portion of their FY 1990 apportionment and deferred receipt of $350 million. The deferral was presumably the result of top FHWA management discussions with Massachusetts during which the State's inability at that time to obligate IC funds was discussed. As a result of the deferral Massachusetts later received larger IC apportionments at a time when they could be used for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. To have accepted the full apportionment would have left the State in the future with hugh IC unobligated balances without the obligation authority to use them.

In FY 1996, Florida ($31.6 million) and Kentucky ($10.4 million) declined receipt of their final IC apportionment because they did not need the funds to complete their Interstate Systems. While there were no further IC apportionments to afford an opportunity to recover the funds, both States subsequently received a greater share of equity adjustment funds offsetting much of the declined IC apportionment.

Minimum Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds

Legislative History

Interstate Construction (IC) funds authorized in the early years (FY 1954 through FY 1959) of the program were distributed to the States by formula based on the then existing formula for the Federal-Aid Primary program (FY 1954 and FY 1955) and in combination with population (FY 1956 through FY 1959). As described below the 1956 Act first provided for a minimum apportionment for part of the apportioned funds for FY 1957, FY 1958, and FY 1959.

There was no further provision for minimum apportionments until the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 which provided in Section 105(b)(1) that no State would receive less than one-half percent of the IC funds apportioned. This provision and similar ones that followed were used in apportioning funds from FY 1972 through FY 1992, except for FY 1977. Minimum apportionments were eliminated by the 1991 ISTEA.

FY 1977

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 provided for 1/2% minimum IC apportionments for FY 1974, 1975, and 1976. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 provided for 1/2% minimum apportionments for FY 1978 and 1979.

FHWA could not release the FY 1977 IC apportionment, scheduled for October 1, 1975, until Congress approved the apportionment factors contained in the 1975 Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE). On December 16, 1975, in the absence of legislation approving the ICE factors, Senate Resolution 62 was concurred in by the House of Representatives, and directed the Secretary to use the 1975 ICE factors for the 1977 apportionment. Since the factors did not take into account the 1/2% minimum apportionment, there was no minimum apportionment for that year.

A summary of the legislative provisions concerning minimum IC apportionments is included in the following table:

Alaska

Since there were no Interstate routes originally designated in Alaska, the State did not share in the 1/2% minimum IC apportionments until enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976. Section 105(b)(1) of the act provided for the inclusion of Alaska in the FY 1978 apportionments and they continued to receive minimum IC apportionments through FY 1992.

Minimum Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 -- P.L. 84-627 -- Section 108(c) For FY 1957, FY 1958, and FY 1959, provided that IC funds shall be apportioned among the States in the following manner: (1) one-half in the ratio of the population of each State bears to the total population of all States and provided that no State shall receive less than 3/4% of the IC funds so apportioned; and (2) one-half in the manner funds are apportioned for the Federal-Aid Primary System. In effect for these 3 years each State received at least 3/8% apportionment.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 -- P.L. 91-605 -- Section 105(b)(1) For FY 1972 and FY 1973, provided that no State shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $55 million for both fiscal years.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 -- P.L. 93-87 -- Section 104(b) For FY 1974, FY 1975, and FY 1976, provided that no State shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $50 million for each such fiscal year. For the first time, the 1/2% provision recognized that the minimum apportionment may be in excess of funding needed to complete the system in a State and provided that the excess amounts could be transferred to certain other Title 23 accounts in the State.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 -- P.L. 94-280 -- Section 105(b)(1) For FY 1978 and FY 1979, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $91 million for FY 1978 and $125 million for FY 1979.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 -- P.L. 95-599 -- Section 104(b)(1) For FY 1980, FY 1981, FY 1982, and FY 1983, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. In addition to other authorizations, the section authorized $125 million for each of the 4 years.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1982 -- P.L. 97-327 -- Section 4(b) For FY 1984, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. The act, and subsequent acts, did not contain additional authorizations to fund the minimum apportionments as they would be a part of the total IC authorization.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 -- P.L. 97-424 -- Section 103(c) For FY 1984, FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned.

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 -- P.L. 100-17 -- Section 102(c) For fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1987, provided that no State, including Alaska, shall receive less than 1/2% of total IC funds apportioned. Amended by the 1991 ISTEA (see below), the provision actually applied to IC funds apportioned for FY 1988, FY 1989, FY 1990, FY 1991, and FY 1992.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 -- P.L. 102-240 -- Section 102(h) Amended Section 102(c) of the 1987 STURAA by terminating the minimum apportionment provision for fiscal years ending before October 1, 1991.

One-Half Percent Minimum Apportionments of Interstate Construction Funds for FY 1972 - 1992
($Millions of Dollars)

	FY 1972	FY 1973	FY 1974	FY 1975	FY 1976	FY 1977	FY 1978	FY 1979	FY 1980	FY 1981	FY 1982	FY 1983	FY 1984	FY 1985	FY 1986	FY 1987	FY 1988	FY 1989	FY 1990	FY 1991	FY 1992	Total FY 72-92
Alabama	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Alaska	---	---	---	---	---	---	15.6	15.6	15.6	16.8	16.8	14.9	17.7	17.9	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	234.0
Arizona	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	13.7	13.5	13.6	40.7
Arkansas	0.3	0.3	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0	---	---	8.4	10.0	13.2	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	135.3
California	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Colorado	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Connecticut	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Delaware	11.0	11.0	8.4	9.8	9.7	---	15.6	15.6	15.6	16.8	16.8	14.9	17.7	17.9	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	283.9
District of Columbia	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	3.2	4.7	---	---	---	---	---	---	7.9
Florida	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Georgia	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Hawaii	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Idaho	5.7	5.7	1.3	1.5	1.5	---	2.1	3.1	3.2	4.7	4.7	2.3	2.7	0.7	---	---	---	---	---	10.4	11.9	61.5
Illinois	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	8.4	10.6	13.7	13.4	13.6	59.6
Indiana	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	5.3	6.3	6.1	7.2	2.9	---	---	2.0	9.3	13.6	52.6
Iowa	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	1.0	1.3	7.2	13.8	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	108.6
Kansas	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.1	0.3	3.1	11.8	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	69.6
Kentucky	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Louisiana	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Maine	0.4	0.4	---	---	---		7.3	10.8	8.3	10.2	10.2	10.2	12.1	12.9	14.3	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	182.1
Maryland	---	---	---	---	---		---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Michigan	---	---	---	---	---	N	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Minnesota	---	---	---	---	---	O	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Mississippi	---	---	---	---	---	N	---	---	---	---	---	2.5	2.5	5.5	11.1	8.6	9.4	12.4	13.7	13.5	13.6	92.7
Missouri	---	---	---	---	---	E	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	1.1	2.5	10.7	10.3	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	78.8
Montana	---	---	---	---	---		---	---	---	---	---	0.5	0.6	4.3	5.6	8.7	8.7	11.4	13.7	13.5	13.6	80.4
Nebraska	9.5	9.5	8.6	10.1	10.0		14.2	9.9	9.9	10.5	10.5	14.9	17.7	17.9	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	256.2
Nevada	3.4	3.4	0.2	0.2	0.2	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.3	0.4	4.8	4.2	10.7	12.6	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	94.7
New Hampshire	1.7	1.7	1.4	1.7	1.7	---	---	3.0	3.1	7.0	7.0	6.4	7.7	7.1	7.5	12.8	7.0	9.3	12.4	13.5	13.6	125.4
New Jersey	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
New Mexico	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	5.7	6.8	8.2	11.3	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	117.2
New York	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	1.7	2.5	13.7	---	4.1	22.0
North Carolina	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
North Dakota	10.0	10.0	8.4	9.8	9.7	---	15.3	15.6	15.6	16.8	16.8	14.9	17.7	17.9	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	281.7
Ohio	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Oklahoma	---	---	---	---	---	---	2.9	2.9	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.7	1.2	1.6	6.8	10.4	26.5
Oregon	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Pennsylvania	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Rhode Island	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	13.1	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	116.3
South Carolina	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	3.4	4.6	8.0
South Dakota	0.8	0.8	3.4	4.0	3.9	---	9.3	9.3	10.4	8.4	8.4	13.6	16.2	17.0	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	208.7
Tennessee	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.9	1.9	3.5	4.1	5.6	7.5	4.1	6.3	33.9
Texas	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Utah	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	10.0	13.6	23.6
Vermont	---	---	2.6	2.6	2.6	---	4.3	10.3	10.3	14.3	14.3	14.0	16.6	17.2	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	212.3
Virginia	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
Washington	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.0
West Virginia	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	4.5	10.0	12.6	13.7	13.5	13.6	67.8
Wisconsin	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	6.9	15.3	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	107.4
Wyoming	---	---	---	---	---	---	3.4	---	---	---	---	9.1	10.9	13.7	17.9	17.9	12.9	13.7	13.7	13.5	13.6	140.3
Totals	42.8	42.8	34.4	39.7	39.3	0.0	89.8	96.0	92.2	105.5	105.5	138.8	164.9	215.0	261.0	298.5	252.9	284.0	323.7	340.0	362.8	3329.4

Interstate Discretionary (ID) Funds

Legislative History

In an effort to accelerate completion of the Interstate System and target funds to States which could meet an accelerated schedule, the ID program was established. The ID funds may be used for the same purposes as Interstate Construction (IC) funds, that is for work to complete the Interstate System eligible under the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-134) and included in the 1981 Interstate Cost Estimate.

Section 115(a) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1978 (P.L. 95-599) amended Section 118(b) of Title 23 providing that sums of IC funds not obligated within their availability period must be made available by the Secretary to any other State applying for the funds for use in completing the Interstate System. Funds were allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis to States that had obligated all their IC apportionment.

Section 115(a) of the 1982 STAA modified 23 U.S.C. 118(b) by providing criteria for allocating ID funds (first to high-cost gap projects and second to projects of high cost in relation to a State's IC apportionment), and by providing the first setaside ($300 million annually for fiscal years starting after September 30, 1983) for the ID program.

Section 114(a) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) retained the $300 million setaside which continued for each year through FY 1992. Section 149 provided for a takedown from several discretionary programs, including ID, to fund demonstration and priority projects. The takedown applied to ID allocations for FY 1987 through 1991 and amounted to about $40 million per year. The act also refined the priorities for allocating ID funds as follows:

• First, for high cost projects on gap sections, and high cost projects for construction of high occupancy vehicle and other lanes on the Harbor Freeway (I-110) in Los Angeles, CA.
• Second, for high cost projects in relation to a State's apportionment of IC funds.
• Third, for conversion of advance construction Interstate (ACI) projects.

Section 1020(a) of the 1991 ISTEA reduced the setaside to $100 million annually for FY 1993 through FY 1996 and eliminated the priorities previously used in allocating ID funds.

ID Allocations

The total ID funds from the setaside provision totalled about $3.1 billion over the life of the program. Another $6.7 billion was distributed as ID funds as a result of lapses at the end of the availability period for IC funds, voluntary early lapses of IC funds, declinations of IC fund apportionments and turnbacks of unobligated IC funds not subject to lapse.

Through FY 1997, under the ID program approximately $9.8 billion has been allocated to 41 States and Washington, D.C.

• Largest Annual Allocated Amount - FY 1988 - $1.47 billion to 14 States.
• 2nd Largest Annual Allocated Amount - FY 1979 - $1.39 billion to 20 States.
• Most funds allocated to 1 State in 1 year - FY 1988 - $266.5 million to California.
• 2nd Most funds allocated to 1 State in 1 year - FY 1994 - $259.6 million to Washington.
• Most funds allocated to 1 State - FY 1979-1997 - $794.6 million to Washington.
• 2nd Most funds allocated to 1 State - FY 1979-1997 - $728.1 million to Florida.

As of 9/30/97 approximately $63.4 million remains available for allocation to the States.

Net allocations by year and State are shown in the following table:

Interstate Discretionary (ID) Fund Allocations for FY 1979 - 1997
($Millions of Dollars)

	FY 1979	FY 1980	FY 1981	FY 1982	FY 1983	FY 1984	FY 1985	FY 1986	FY 1987	FY 1988	FY 1989	FY 1990	FY 1991	FY 1992	FY 1993	FY 1994	FY 1995	FY 1996	FY 1997	Total FY 79-97
Alabama	59.5	---	---	---	73.8	12.6	13.4	---	(1.4)	125.4	(3.0)	---	---	---	(4.8)	(0.5)	---	(0.3)	---	274.7
Arizona	---	---	---	---	29.1	65.1	---	163.1	41.3	70.8	---	---	---	(2.1)	0.3	(3.0)	---	---	---	364.6
Arkansas	8.8	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	(0.1)	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	8.7
California	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	59.9	266.5	---	---	---	---	---	---	26.6	---	---	353.0
Colorado	---	---	---	6.9	---	---	14.2	---	---	---	93.3	23.3	33.5	13.7	9.9	22.8	---	---	---	217.6
Connecticut	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	87.0	105.7	---	9.1	67.2	13.5	---	---	---	(1.2)	(1.8)	279.5
District of Columbia	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	4.2	---	---	4.2
Florida	223.8	129.8	84.8	7.5	90.0	20.3	23.5	74.6	---	---	92.9	(2.8)	(1.5)	(4.2)	(0.3)	(10.2)	(0.0)	---	(0.2)	728.1
Georgia	115.5	18.1	150.9	18.2	58.8	---	(27.4)	15.6	---	---	(0.5)	---	---	---	10.5	---	---	---	---	359.7
Hawaii	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	88.5	95.6	53.0	99.6	184.4	161.1	---	---	7.5	689.7
Idaho	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	55.7	52.9	(7.6)	---	---	---	(1.8)	---	---	---	99.2
Illinois	---	---	---	---	---	53.3	32.4	30.3	17.8	---	(0.8)	---	(1.0)	---	---	---	(1.4)	---	---	130.6
Indiana	48.0	---	(1.5)	(0.4)	0.3	(1.0)	---	---	37.7	(3.2)	(0.0)	(0.9)	(1.3)	---	---	---	---	---	(0.0)	77.6
Iowa	11.4	---	---	4.0	16.5	7.2	---	(0.6)	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	38.5
Kansas	---	31.4	28.4	1.9	9.3	28.4	12.4	41.0	19.4	(3.5)	(0.1)	---	---	(0.2)	---	---	---	(0.1)	---	168.3
Kentucky	12.2	34.6	11.6	1.2	---	---	(0.5)	---	---	---	(2.1)	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	57.0
Louisiana	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	14.2	16.3	13.6	2.4	---	46.4
Maryland	---	100.7	---	9.7	(0.9)	---	---	---	---	76.4	(0.5)	104.3	---	(5.7)	---	37.1	66.2	---	---	387.3
Michigan	---	---	---	---	---	---	33.1	45.1	45.2	11.7	63.7	4.5	---	---	1.1	23.6	50.5	0.0	0.0	278.6
Minnesota	---	---	---	5.6	34.6	38.3	14.6	31.8	44.5	78.2	101.0	13.8	9.5	8.1	81.9	(3.1)	(0.1)	---	5.4	463.9
Mississippi	7.3	---	(1.5)	(0.2)	---	4.0	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	9.6
Missouri	126.3	---	20.9	8.5	39.1	19.4	11.8	14.3	5.1	(0.6)	(0.9)	---	---	---	(0.0)	---	---	---	(1.7)	242.1
Montana	101.3	14.4	---	9.3	33.8	---	4.6	---	---	(0.4)	(0.3)	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	162.7
Nevada	46.0	---	14.6	16.3	50.1	---	22.0	---	---	---	(1.5)	(0.5)	---	(0.0)	---	---	(0.7)	---	---	146.2
New Hampshire	---	---	---	---	---	3.1	9.0	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	12.1
New Jersey	---	---	---	---	---	---	23.0	---	---	182.0	(1.5)	---	55.5	---	---	(11.1)	17.4	---	---	265.3
New Mexico	15.7	(0.3)	---	0.3	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	15.7
New York	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	45.3	28.2	17.2	72.2	---	---	0.3	8.2	---	---	171.4
North Carolina	58.3	(0.7)	---	---	---	(0.8)	15.4	---	32.0	(0.7)	104.8	(1.1)	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	207.2
Ohio	---	---	---	---	---	---	32.3	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	(1.4)	---	---	---	30.9
Oklahoma	---	---	8.1	9.4	---	---	4.0	32.8	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	54.3
Oregon	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	11.9	---	0.0	---	---	(0.6)	---	(0.1)	0.0	---	---	11.2
Pennsylvania	---	---	---	---	---	10.8	31.4	---	164.2	233.3	---	---	---	---	---	90.7	41.1	---	---	571.5
South Carolina	21.7	(0.7)	---	(0.1)	(0.6)	---	5.8	44.6	32.3	---	---	(1.3)	42.6	29.2	(0.0)	85.2	---	---	---	258.7
Tennessee	118.0	(0.5)	19.0	5.7	31.0	19.0	22.2	---	6.1	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	(0.1)	---	---	220.4
Texas	93.5	57.3	8.1	58.6	(1.5)	18.9	35.6	(2.3)	(0.5)	---	(1.9)	(0.7)	(0.2)	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.0)	5.7	---	---	270.4
Utah	86.3	0.1	14.3	16.4	19.3	18.8	25.1	---	29.0	74.4	7.8	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	291.5
Vermont	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	0.9	---	---	---	---	0.9
Virginia	70.7	(0.1)	(0.1)	0.5	9.6	45.0	53.1	132.4	14.2	116.7	34.5	18.7	---	(1.9)	0.0	87.4	7.9	---	---	588.6
Washington	---	---	---	22.1	---	34.9	40.4	157.0	(16.4)	36.3	236.1	39.5	35.9	(49.0)	---	259.6	0.0	---	---	796.4
West Virginia	161.8	106.5	---	---	99.0	20.5	28.8	---	47.1	---	(12.9)	(1.4)	(0.2)	(0.1)	---	---	---	---	---	449.1
Wyoming	2.0	---	---	2.3	---	---	(0.1)	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	4.2
Totals	1,388.1	490.6	357.6	203.7	591.3	417.8	480.1	779.7	676.4	1,470.0	877.6	309.6	365.3	100.0	297.9	753.0	239.1	0.9	9.2	9,807.9
Footnotes: The 1978 STAA created the Interstate Discretionary Program by making available to other States Interstate apportionments not obligated in any State within the prescribed period. The 1982 STM supplemented the funds for this program by setting aside $300 million from annual apportionments of IC funds beginning in FY 1984. The 1987 STURAA continued the $300 million setaside. The 1991 ISTEA reduced the funds setaside to $100 million for each of FY 1992-1995, the final authorizations for this program.

"Double Dipping"

Background

One of the more controversial situations involving funding for construction of the Interstate System resulted from enactment of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17). In effect, Section 102(b) of that act allowed States to voluntarily lapse Interstate Construction (IC) funds a year early, retain the obligation authority that originally accompanied the IC apportionment, and then recover the funds with new obligation authority through the Interstate Discretionary (ID) program. This created a "double dip" obligation authority windfall for certain States.

Section 114(a)

Section 114(a) of the STURAA amended 23 U.S.C. 118(b)(2)(A) as follows:

(i) APPORTIONMENTS BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 1989 - Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, sums apportioned before October 1, 1989, for the Interstate System in any State shall remain available for expenditure in the State until the end of the fiscal year for which authorized. Upon request of the State, the Secretary shall reduce the period of availability of such sums by one fiscal year.

(ii) APPORTIONMENTS THEREAFTER - Sums apportioned on or after October 1, 1989, for the Interstate System shall remain available for expenditure in the State until expended.

As a result States could voluntarily lapse unobligated IC funds after one year of availability rather than the customary two-year period. This provision only applied to:

• IC funds apportioned on 4/2/87 upon passage of the STURAA that would lapse on 9/30/88 and were unobligated,
• IC funds scheduled for apportionment on 10/1/87 that would normally lapse if unobligated at the end of their availability period on 9/30/89.
• IC funds scheduled for apportionment on 10/1/88 that would normally lapse if unobligated at the end of their availability period on 9/30/90.

The IC funds voluntarily lapsed were redistributed under the ID program.

The Impact of Section 114(a)

As a result of these provisions the ID program received a huge influx of funds. On 10/1/87, 9 States voluntarily lapsed over $1.1 billion. On 10/1/88, an additional 5 States voluntarily lapsed $313 million. Finally, on 10/1/89, 2 States voluntarily lapsed $23 million.

The strategy for the lapses became readily apparent. In the first year, several States intended to voluntarily lapse their entire IC unobligated balance on 10/1/87 after having used their full FY 1987 obligation authority for other Federal-aid program categories. The States then could meet one of the criteria for receiving ID allocations - have fully obligated their apportioned IC funds - and be eligible to request ID funds for FY 1988. Of course, the FY 1988 ID allocations would be accompanied by new obligation authority, creating a "double dip" for such States in the obligation authority pool.

FHWA realized the potential for the double dip and issued a 7/9/87 notice which indicated that States which voluntarily lapsed IC funds a year early on 10/1/87 pursuant to Section 102(b), would be denied ID allocations in FY 1988. However, on 8/18/87, Congressman Glenn Anderson (California), Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, wrote FHWA Administrator Barnhart that this was not the intent of the legislation. The chairman indicated the provision was intended to enhance the ability of States which had a large backlog of unobligated IC funds to accelerate completion of the Interstate System by requesting ID allocations. On 8/27/87, the administrator wrote the chairman and acknowledged that the chairman's arguments were compelling. Also on 8/27/87, FHWA issued a new notice providing full flexibility to the States to take advantage of the IC voluntary lapse and then receive ID allocations in FY 1988.

Those States which took advantage of the of the 10/1/87 IC fund early lapse and received FY 1988 ID funds, found themselves at the end of FY 1988 with a zero balance of IC funds since all IC funds had to be fully obligated in order to receive ID funds. Thus, the "double dip" was not repeated by the same States in the following years.

Several States and members of Congress took FHWA to task for the unfairness of the double dip. But, no contrary action was ever taken and the matter ran its course over the 3-year period, 1987 to 1989. And the provision did speed completion of the Interstate System in participating States. An analysis of the table on the next page shows:

• 12 States received ID allocations after voluntarily lapsing their unobligated IC funds.
• The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Ohio voluntarily lapsed unobligated IC funds but did not subsequently seek ID allocations.
• Over $1.4 billion was voluntarily lapsed under Section 102(b) and redistributed under the ID program. This accounted for half of the $2.8 billion distributed under the ID program for the FY 1988-1990 period.
• The "double dipping" drained about $1,242 million in obligation authority from other Federal-aid programs to accompany the lapsed funds redistributed as ID allocations.
• Section 102(b) did accelerate completion of the Interstate System in the 12 participating States by allocating to them ID funds with new obligation authority while requiring they fully obligate apportioned IC funds in the same year they received ID allocations. Conversely, the provision may have slowed Interstate completion in certain other States by limiting the amount of obligation authority received, especially in FY 1988.

"Double Dipping" -- FY 1988 - FY 1990
States Using the Provision of Section 102(b) of the 1987 STURAA
(Federal Funds, in $Thousands)

State	First Year		Second Year		Third Year		Totals
	Voluntary Lapse 10/1/87	FY 1988 ID Allocations	Voluntary Lapse 10/1/88	FY 1989 ID Allocations	Voluntary Lapse 10/1/89	FY 1990 ID Allocations	Voluntary Lapses	ID Allocations
Alabama	88,262	125,535	0	0	0	0	88,262	125,535
California	281,375	266,515	0	0	0	0	281,375	266,515
Colorado	0	0	55,693	93,446	0	25,498	55,693	118,944
Dist of Columbia	34,257	0	0	0	0	0	34,257	0
Florida	0	0	115,353	94,815	0	0	115,353	94,815
Hawaii	0	0	94,436	88,534	0	95,588	94,436	184,122
Idaho	23,947	57,725	0	58,185	0	0	23,947	115,910
Maryland	66,013	76,434	0	0	0	104,251	66,013	180,685
Massachusetts	361,816	0	0	0	0	0	361,816	0
New Jersey	94,928	182,000	0	22,000	0	0	94,928	204,000
Ohio	0	0	30,365	0	19,342	0	49,707	0
Oregon	0	0	17,675	17,969	3,948	0	21,623	17,969
Pennsylvania	120,617	233,285	0	0	0	0	120,617	233,285
Washington	40,638	37,600	0	238,000	0	70,300	40,638	345,900
Other States	0	511,661	0	352,189	0	70,734	0	934,584
Totals	1,111,855	1,490,756	313,522	965,138	23,290	366,370	1,448,667	2,822,264
Footnote: 12 States voluntarily lapsed IC funds and subsequently received ID allocations. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Ohio voluntarily lapsed IC funds but did not seek ID allocations.

Transfers of Interstate Construction Funds In Accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119(d)

• Section 116(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (P.L. 97-424) added Section 119(d) to Title 23 which provided that the Secretary could approve a State transfer of not more than 50% of its Interstate Construction (IC) fund apportionment to the Interstate Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction (I-4R) account in an amount not to exceed the Federal share of cost of remaining work, on sections open-to-traffic, and eligible for IC funding as included in the most recent Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE). Upon approval of the transfer, the work represented by the transfer is removed from the ICE and loses its IC fund eligibility.
• Section 116 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-17) modified Section 119(d) to remove the 50% limitation and permitted the IC funds to be transferred to the Federal-Aid Primary (FAP) account in addition to I-4R.
• As a result of revisions to fund categories included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, IC funds could thereafter be transferred to the Interstate Maintenance (IM) or National Highway System (NHS) accounts.
• Through 4/1/98, a total of 44 transfers have been approved in 19 States. As a result, the total cost of the Interstate System as reported in the Interstate Cost Estimate has been reduced by $1,350,616,016 and IC funds representing 90 percent of this amount and totalling $1,217,219,756 have been transferred to I-4R, FAP, IM, or NHS.

Transfers of Interstate Construction Funds to I-4R, FAP, IM & NHS In Accordance With 23 U.S.C. 119(d)

State	Total Funds	Federal Funds	Date Approved	Funds Transferred To	Description of Work Transferred
Georgia	38,005,000	34,204,500	4/27/92	NHS	I-75 and I-95 stage paving
	22,726,000	20,453,314	6/30/93	NHS	All remaining work on I-575, portion of I-285
	15,173,000	13,655,057	8/11/94	NHS	All remaining work on I-85, portion of I-185 & I-285
	817,306	735,572	9/29/94	NHS	Portion of I-185
	12,629,694	11,366,725	4/28/95	NHS	All remaining work on I-185
	89,351,000	80,415,168	Georgia Totals
Illinois	17,137,000	15,423,300	7/08/83	I-4R	Interchanges, stage paving & lighting - various routes
	8,220,000	7,398,000	4/14/90	I-4R	All remaining eligible work in Illinois
	25,357,000	22,821,300	Illinois Totals
Indiana	9,744,000	8,770,000	8/02/83	I-4R	All remaining work on I-64
Louisiana	24,156,000	21,740,000	4/01/98	NHS	I-310 work at milepost 9.18
Maryland	3,216,000	2,894,400	9/12/83	I-4R	Noise walls on I-170 (renumbered as I-595)
	9,840,000	8,856,000	4/14/86	I-4R	All remaining work on I-70
	29,774,000	26,796,000	9/16/93	NHS	I-195 at BWI Airport & part of I-68 at MD 2 & MD 450
	106,143,000	95,529,000	7/30/95	NHS	Misc work on I-68, I-70, I-97, I-195, I-270 and I-395
	148,973,000	134,075,400	Maryland Totals
Mississippi	9,073,000	8,165,700	4/28/92	I-4R	All remaining work in Mississippi
Missouri	7,821,100	7,039,000	7/20/87	FAP	Misc work on I-44, I-55, I-70 and I-270
New Hampshire	5,437,000	4,893,300	12/10/87	FAP	Overlays, interchange & landscaping on I-89 and I-93
	16,937,000	15,243,300	6/14/88	FAP	I-93 interchange at Tilton, Exit 21
	22,374,000	20,136,600	New Hampshire Totals
New York	23,107,000	20,798,000	9/13/83	I-4R	I-190 interchange at Buffalo & I-684/138 interchange
North Carolina	58,823,116	52,940,804	7/31/89	I-4R	I-85 added lanes, Greensboro to Graham
	11,539,000	10,385,100	2/19/91	I-4R	I-85 added lanes, east of Greensboro
	13,635,000	12,272,000	6/24/91	I-4R	I-85 added lanes west of Charlotte & east of Greensboro
	6,400,000	5,760,000	9/06/91	I-4R	I-85 added lanes east of Gastonia
	36,240,000	32,616,000	11/01/91	I-4R	I-85 added lanes at Gastonia, Charlotte & Burlington
	12,653,000	11,388,000	6/11/92	I-4R	I-85 added lanes at Greensboro
	139,290,116	125,361,904	North Carolina Totals
Oklahoma	8,276,000	7,448,220	8/16/89	I-4R	I-35 added lanes at Oklahoma City, MP 125 - 126
	6,539,000	5,885,444	8/17/90	I-4R	I-35 added lanes at Oklahoma City, MP 123 - 125
	8,889,000	8,000,000	12/11/92	IM	I-35 added lanes at Oklahoma City, MP 119.33 - 120
	23,704,000	21,333,664	Oklahoma Totals
Oregon	9,855,000	9,088,281	4/09/91	I-4R	PE, R/W & Utilities on I-84, MP 14.04 - 15.61
	16,298,000	15,030,000	5/06/92	IM, NHS	Portion of I-5 E Marquam-Grand Ave Ramp
	36,008,800	33,207,315	8/10/95	NHS	Remainder of I-5 E Marquam Interchange & I-84, MP 14.04-15.61
	62,161,800	57,325,596	Oregon Totals
Pennsylvania	179,557,000	161,601,141	9/02/83	I-4R	I-70, portions of MP 25.60 - 54.50
	44,033,000	39,629,700	9/28/84	I-4R	I-76, portions of MP 332.5 and 338.3
	125,012,000	112,510,800	5/07/85	I-4R	I-76, remainder of cost at MP 332.5 and 338.3
	68,435,000	61,591,500	9/30/85	I-4R	I-70, MP 25.6 and 47.4
	107,351,000	96,615,900	1/14/86	I-4R	I-70, all of MP 38.4 to 43.2 and portion of MP 43.2 and 43.8
	13,007,000	11,706,300	5/06/88	I-4R	???
	537,395,000	483,655,341	Pennsylvania Totals
Rhode Island	6,745,000	6,070,500	6/08/93	IM	All remaining work on I-295
Tennessee	4,844,000	4,358,747	6/29/93	IM	I-40 interchange ramps A and F at MP 0.51
	8,263,000	7,435,944	7/30/95	IM	Additional work in I-40, MP 0.51 & 379.35
	13,107,000	11,794,691	Tennessee Totals
Texas	96,516,000	86,864,400	11/12/91	FAP	Various segments on I-10 and I-40
Virginia	47,381,000	42,642,900	8/10/95	NHS	Interchs I-81 MP 147.09 & 236.69 & I-295 MP 3.53, 11.76, 24.69
Washington	30,698,000	27,831,000	7/24/97	NHS	I-405, portion of work at MP 166.34
	12,685,000	11,500,000	9/30/97	NHS	I-405, portion of work at MP 158.81
	43,383,000	39,331,000	Washington Totals
Wisconsin	20,977,000	18,878,591	5/25/83	I-4R	Misc work on I-43 and I-894
Totals	$1,350,616,016	$1,217,219,756

INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION FUND TRANSFERS TO I-4R, FAP, 1M & NHS
Sorted by Approval Date

#	State	Total Costs from ICE	Transferred Amount Federal Funds	Date Approved
1	Wisconsin	20,977,000	18,878,591	5/25/83
2	Illinois	17,137,000	15,423,300	7/08/83
3	Indiana	9,744,000	8,770,000	8/02/83
4	Pennsylvania	179,557,000	161,601,141	9/02/83
5	Maryland	3,216,000	2,894,400	9/12/83
6	New York	23,107,000	20,798,000	9/13/83
7	Pennsylvania	44,033,000	39,629,700	9/28/84
8	Pennsylvania	125,012,000	112,510,800	5/07/85
9	Pennsylvania	68,435,000	61,591,500	9/30/85
10	Pennsylvania	107,351,000	96,615,900	1/14/86
11	Maryland	9,840,000	8,856,000	4/14/86
12	Missouri	7,821,100	7,039,000	7/20/87
13	New Hampshire	5,437,000	4,893,300	12/10/87
14	Pennsylvania	13,007,000	11,706,300	5/06/88
15	New Hampshire	16,937,000	15,243,300	6/14/88
16	North Carolina	58,823,116	52,940,804	7/31/89
17	Oklahoma	8,276,000	7,448,220	8/16/89
18	Illinois	8,220,000	7,398,000	4/14/90
19	Oklahoma	6,539,000	5,885,444	8/17/90
20	North Carolina	11,539,000	10,385,100	2/19/91
21	Oregon	9,855,000	9,088,281	4/09/91
22	North Carolina	13,635,000	12,272,000	6/24/91
23	North Carolina	6,400,000	5,760,000	9/06/91
24	North Carolina	36,240,000	32,616,000	11/01/91
25	Texas	96,516,000	86,864,400	11/12/91
26	Georgia	38,005,000	34,204,500	4/27/92
27	Mississippi	9,073,000	8,165,700	4/28/92
28	Oregon	16,298,000	15,030,000	5/06/92
29	North Carolina	12,653,000	11,388,000	6/11/92
30	Oklahoma	8,889,000	8,000,000	12/11/92
31	Rhode Island	6,745,000	6,070,500	6/08/93
32	Tennessee	4,844,000	4,358,747	6/29/93
33	Georgia	22,726,000	20,453,314	6/30/93
34	Maryland	29,774,000	26,796,000	9/16/93
35	Georgia	15,173,000	13,655,057	8/11/94
36	Georgia	817,306	735,572	9/29/94
37	Georgia	12,629,694	11,366,725	4/28/95
38	Maryland	106,143,000	95,529,000	7/30/95
39	Tennessee	8,263,000	7,435,944	7/30/95
40	Oregon	36,008,800	33,207,315	8/10/95
41	Virginia	47,381,000	42,642,900	8/10/95
42	Washington	30,698,000	27,831,000	7/24/97
43	Washington	12,685,000	11,500,000	9/30/97
44	Louisiana	24,156,000	21,740,000	4/01/98
Totals		$1,350,616,016	$1,217,219,756