23 U.S.C. § 501

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar

In this chapter, the following definitions apply:(1)Federal laboratory.—The term “Federal laboratory” includes a Government-owned, Government-operated laboratory and a Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory.(2)Incident.—The term “incident” means a crash, natural disaster, workzone activity, special event, or other emergency road user occurrence that adversely affects or impedes the normal flow of traffic.(3)Innovation lifecycle.—The term “innovation lifecycle” means the process of innovating through—(A) the identification of a need;(B) the establishment of the scope of research to address that need;(C) setting an agenda;(D) carrying out research, development, deployment, and testing of the resulting technology or innovation; and(E) carrying out an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the resulting technology or innovation.(4)Intelligent transportation infrastructure.—The term “intelligent transportation infrastructure” means fully integrated public sector intelligent transportation system components, as defined by the Secretary.(5)Intelligent transportation system.—The terms “intelligent transportation system” and “ITS” mean electronics, photonics, communications, or information processing used singly or in combination to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system.(6)National architecture.—For purposes of this chapter, the term “national architecture” means the common framework for interoperability that defines—(A) the functions associated with intelligent transportation system user services;(B) the physical entities or subsystems within which the functions reside;(C) the data interfaces and information flows between physical subsystems; and(D) the communications requirements associated with the information flows.(7)Project.—The term “project” means an undertaking to research, develop, or operationally test intelligent transportation systems or any other undertaking eligible for assistance under this chapter.(8)Safety.—The term “safety” includes highway and traffic safety systems, research, and development relating to vehicle, highway, driver, passenger, bicyclist, and pedestrian characteristics, accident investigations, communications, emergency medical care, and transportation of the injured.(9)Standard.—The term “standard” means a document that—(A) contains technical specifications or other precise criteria for intelligent transportation systems that are to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics so as to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for the intended purposes of the materials, products, processes, and services; and(B) may support the national architecture and promote—(i) the widespread use and adoption of intelligent transportation system technology as a component of the surface transportation systems of the United States; and(ii) interoperability among intelligent transportation system technologies implemented throughout the States.(Added Pub. L. 105–178, title V, § 5101(2), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 422; amended Pub. L. 112–141, div. E, title II, § 52001, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 865.)Prior Provisions

A prior section 501, added Pub. L. 90–495, § 30, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 830, related to declaration of policy as to highway relocation assistance, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 91–646, title II, § 220(a)(10), Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1903.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Pars. (2) to (9). Pub. L. 112–141 added pars. (2) to (7), redesignated former par. (2) as (8), and added par. (9).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–141 effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

Authorization of Appropriations

Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title VI, § 6002, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1561, provided that:“(a)In General.—The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account):“(1)Highway research and development program.—To carry out section 503(b) of title 23, United States Code, $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020.“(2)Technology and innovation deployment program.—To carry out section 503(c) of title 23, United States Code—“(A) $67,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;“(B) $67,500,000 for fiscal year 2017;“(C) $67,500,000 for fiscal year 2018;“(D) $67,500,000 for fiscal year 2019; and“(E) $67,500,000 for fiscal year 2020.“(3)Training and education.—To carry out section 504 of title 23, United States Code, $24,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020.“(4)Intelligent transportation systems program.—To carry out sections 512 through 518 of title 23, United States Code, $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020.“(5)University transportation centers program.—To carry out section 5505 of title 49, United States Code—“(A) $72,500,000 for fiscal year 2016;“(B) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2017;“(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2018;“(D) $77,500,000 for fiscal year 2019; and“(E) $77,500,000 for fiscal year 2020.“(6)Bureau of transportation statistics.—To carry out chapter 63 of title 49, United States Code, $26,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020.“(b)Administration.—The Federal Highway Administration shall—“(1) administer the programs described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a); and“(2) in consultation with relevant modal administrations, administer the programs described in subsection (a)(4).“(c)Applicability of Title 23, United States Code.—Funds authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) shall—“(1) be available for obligation in the same manner as if those funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the Federal share of the cost of a project or activity carried out using those funds shall be 80 percent, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Act [div. A of Pub. L. 114–94, see Tables for classification] (including the amendments by this Act) or otherwise determined by the Secretary [of Transportation]; and“(2) remain available until expended and not be transferable, except as otherwise provided in this Act.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: Roosevelt Lathan & Pearline Lathan, His Wife v. John A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., 455 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roosevelt Lathan & Pearline Lathan, His Wife v. John A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., 455 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1972). · cites it 5× “After the adoption of Chapter 5 of the Federal Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., the Federal Highway Administration issued an Instructional Memorandum (IM) 80-1-68, which became the *1116 applicable regulation for implementing the new relocation assistance program.”

La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 337 F. Supp. 221 (N.D. Cal. 1971). · cites it 2× “23 U.S.C. § 501 reads as follows: Congress hereby declares that the prompt and equitable relocation and reestablishment of persons, businesses, farmers, and nonprofit organizations displaced as a result of the Federal highway programs and the construction of Federal-aid highways…”

Hanley v. Volpe, 305 F. Supp. 977 (E.D. Wis. 1969). · cites it 3× “The plaintiffs demand injunctive and declaratory relief to force the defendants to comply with 23 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. and the rules promulgated under that statute dealing with the relocation of persons who have been or will be displaced by this project.”

Keith v. Volpe, 352 F. Supp. 1324 (C.D. Cal. 1972). “In enacting Chapter V of the Highway Act and later in replacing it with the more comprehensive Relocation Act, Congress intended to establish relocation policies that would, in the words of Section 501 of the Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 501 , “insure that a few individuals do not…”

Whitman v. State High. Comm'n of Missouri, 400 F. Supp. 1050 (W.D. Mo. 1975). “17 *1064 In 1968 the Commission gave assurances to the Federal Highway Administration that it would comply with all provisions of Chapter 5 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. 18 The Commission did not, however, implement the provisions of this act to…”

Triangle Improvement Council v. William S. Ritchie, Comm'r, State Road Comm'n of the State of West Virginia, 429 F.2d 423 (4th Cir. 1970). “23 U.S.C. § 501 . Theretofore no duty was owed to displaced persons save to furnish them information.”

Artesian Water Co. v. State, Dep't of Highways & Transp., 330 A.2d 432 (Del. Super. Ct. 1974). “, as did its predecessor, Chapter 5 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., requires that any state, as a condition to receiving federal aid, submit satisfactory assurances to the head of the appropriate federal agency (here, the Secretary of Transportation)…”

Concerned Citizens for the Pres. of Clarksville v. John A. Volpe, 445 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1971). “830 , 23 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., (Supp.1971) (hereafter, the Act), the Secretary of Transportation is prohibited from approving any federal-aid highway project which will cause the displacement of any person, business or farm operation unless he received satisfactory assurances…”

United States v. Braddy, 320 F. Supp. 1239 (D. Or. 1971). “23 U.S.C. § 501 . They argue that when the homeowner is officially notified of the acquisition of his property as required by the administrative interpretation there is no longer merely a “reasonable expectation,” but a virtual certainty that the property will be taken.”

Intelligent Transp. Soc'y of Am. v. FCC, 45 F.4th 406 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “23 U.S.C. § 501 (5) (defining an “intelligent transportation system” as “electronics, photonics, communications, or information processing used singly or in combination to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system”).”

David Hornberger, in His Off. Capacity, Ryan Anderson, in His Off. Capacity, Brian Hamilton, in His Off. Capacity, Bonnie Giddens, in Her Off. Capacity, Lisa Krenger, in Her Off. Capacity, Perry Shankle, in His Off. Capacity, Stacy Sharp, in Her Off. Capacity, Dr. Dana Bashara, in Her Off. Capacity, & Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Selina Jones, Roy Hummel & Leslie Michelle Pruitt (Tex. App. 2024). “815 (codified at 23 U.S.C. §§ 501–512). Section 502 of that Act stated that the Secretary of Transportation “shall not approve any project” which would cause the displacement of any person, business, or farm unless the State Highway Department provided assurances for “fair and…”

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.