U.S. Code » Title 23 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

23 U.S.C. § 128

Public hearings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any State transportation department which submits plans for a Federal-aid highway project involving the by passing of or, going through any city, town, or village, either incorporated or unincorporated, shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, and has considered the economic and social effects of such a location, its impact on the environment, and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community. Any State transportation department which submits plans for an Interstate System project shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings at a convenient location, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings for the purpose of enabling persons in rural areas through or contiguous to whose property the highway will pass to express any objections they may have to the proposed locations of such highway. Such certification shall be accompanied by a report which indicates the consideration given to the economic, social, environmental and other effects of the plan or highway location or design and various alternatives which were raised during the hearing or which were otherwise considered.(b) When hearings have been held under subsection (a), the State transportation department shall submit a copy of the transcript of said hearings to the Secretary, together with the certification and report.(Pub. L. 85–767, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 902; Pub. L. 90–495, § 24, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 828; Pub. L. 91–605, title I, § 135, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1734; Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1212(a)(2)(A)(i), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 193.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–178 substituted “State transportation department” for “State highway department” wherever appearing.

1970—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91–605, § 135(a), provided for submission of a report by the State highway department involved indicating consideration given to economic, social, environmental, and other effects of the plan or highway location or design plus the various alternatives which were considered.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91–605, § 135(b), inserted reference to report to be submitted by the State highway department together with the certification of public hearings.

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–495 inserted social effect of projects, the impact on environment, and their consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community to the list of factors to be considered by State highway departments in looking over projects involving the bypassing or passing through of municipalities.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–495 effective Aug. 23, 1968, see section 37 of Pub. L. 90–495, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2022 · leading case: Ward v. Ackroyd, 344 F. Supp. 1202 (D. Maryland 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ward v. Ackroyd, 344 F. Supp. 1202 (D. Maryland 1972). · cites it 25× “An injunction is sought by Ward to restrain Ackroyd from approving the highway design of I-70N from the City Line to Hilton Parkway, from authorizing right-of-way application, from approving construction plans, specifications and estimates, and from authorizing construction of…”
Coalition for Canyon Pres. v. Karl S. Bowers, Adm'r, Fed. High. Admin., 632 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 5× “(1979), for similar reasons; (3) the public hearings on the draft EIS were not held in accordance with NEPA and appropriate regulations; (4) the MDOH did not timely request design approval, in violation of 23 U.S.C. § 128 (a) and applicable regulations; and (5) the highway…”
City of Davis, a Mun. Corp. v. William T. Coleman, Jr., Sec'y of Transp., 521 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1975). · cites it 6× “On October 24, 1972, after work had begun, Davis sought from the district court an injunction against the construction on the grounds that the defendants CDHW and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had failed to hold public hearings as required by 23 U.S.C. § 128 *666 and…”
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). · cites it 2× “, 23 U. S. C. §§ 128 , 131 (1976 ed. and Supp.”
Barnes v. United States Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs argued that the "open house" was not a "public hearing" as required by 23 U.S.C. § 128 and 23 C.F.R. § 771.111 (h) (concerning federal-aid highway programs; "public hearing" not defined).”
Fayetteville Area Chamber of Com., Interstate 95 Comm. v. John A. Volpe, Individually & as Sec'y of Transp., 515 F.2d 1021 (4th Cir. 1975). · cites it 7× “Also, after the project had commenced and public hearings had been held, 23 U.S.C. § 128 (a) was amended. 2 As initially applied to this bypass, § 128(a) required public hearings and consideration of the economic effects of the location of the bypass.”
Se. Legal Def. Grp. v. Adams, 436 F. Supp. 891 (D. Or. 1977). · cites it 4× “1 On May 24, 1974,1 ruled in favor of plaintiffs on their eighth claim— that the state highway defendants had failed to comply with 23 U.S.C. § 128 (a) and its implementing regulations.”
North Carolina Dep't of Transp. v. Crest Street Cmty. Council, Inc., 479 U.S. 6 (1986). · cites it 2× “The action alleged violations of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U. S. C. §§ 128 , 138, the Department of *10 Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.”
Cnty. of Bergen v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009 (D.N.J. 1985). · cites it 5× “See 23 U.S.C. § 128 ; 23 C.F.R. § 790.3 . NJDOT certified to the Federal Highway Administration, in accordance with 23 U.”
Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Elizabeth Dole, 826 F.2d 60 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 4332 (2)(C) (1982), and the hearings requirement of § 128 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 128 (1982). It also contends that the district court erred in refusing to consider certain evidence and in denying a discovery request.”
Timothy W. Swain & Katherine A. Swain v. Claude S. Brinegar, Sec'y of Transp. for the United States, 517 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1975). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs contend that this corridor selection process was arbitrary and capri *771 cious and in violation of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 128 5 and PPM 20-8 6 promulgated thereunder.”
Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of Transp., 310 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Nev. 2004). · cites it 7× “Sierra Club also challenges whether FHWA’s “open house” hearings satisfy 23 U.S.C. § 128’s public hearing requirement.”
Show all 144 citing cases →
— 23 U.S.C. § 128(a) — 4 cases
The Citizens Env't Council v. John Volpe, Sec'y of Transp., 484 F.2d 870 (10th Cir. 1973).
Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1987).
Citizens Env't Council v. Volpe, 364 F. Supp. 286 (D. Kan. 1973).
Fayetteville Area Chamber of Com. & Interstate 95 Comm. v. John A. Volpe, Individually & as Sec'y of Transp., 463 F.2d 402 (4th Cir. 1972).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.