U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE I— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › Chapter CHAPTER 3— GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

49 U.S.C. § 304

Application of categorical exclusions for multimodal projects

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:(1)Cooperating authority.—The term “cooperating authority” means a Department of Transportation operating administration or secretarial office that has expertise but is not the lead authority with respect to a proposed multimodal project.(2)Lead authority.—The term “lead authority” means a Department of Transportation operating administration or secretarial office that has the lead responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to a proposed multimodal project.(3)Multimodal project.—The term “multimodal project” has the meaning given the term in section 139(a) of title 23.(b)Exercise of Authorities.—The authorities granted in this section may be exercised for a multimodal project, class of projects, or program of projects that are carried out under this title or title 23.(c)Application of Categorical Exclusions for Multimodal Projects.—In considering the environmental impacts of a proposed multimodal project, a lead authority may apply categorical exclusions designated under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in implementing regulations or procedures of a cooperating authority for a proposed multimodal project, subject to the conditions that—(1) the lead authority makes a determination, with the concurrence of the cooperating authority—(A) on the applicability of a categorical exclusion to a proposed multimodal project; and(B) that the project satisfies the conditions for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and this section;(2) the lead authority follows the implementing regulations of the cooperating authority or procedures under that Act; and(3) the lead authority determines that—(A) the proposed multimodal project does not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the environment; and(B) extraordinary circumstances do not exist that merit additional analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment required under that Act.(d)Cooperating Authority Expertise.—A cooperating authority shall provide expertise to the lead authority on aspects of the multimodal project in which the cooperating authority has expertise.(Pub. L. 97–449, § 1(b), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2419; Pub. L. 112–141, div. A, title I, § 1314(a), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 547; Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title I, § 1310, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1397.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

304(a)

49:1653(g) (less 3d sentence).

Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, § 4(g), 80 Stat. 934.

304(b)

49:1653(g) (3d sentence).

In subsection (a), the text of 49:1653(g) (last sentence) is omitted as executed.

In subsection (a)(4), the word “ensure” is substituted for “assure” as being more precise. The words “of the United States Government” are substituted for “Federal”, and the words “United States” are substituted for “national”, for clarity and consistency.

In subsection (b), the words “The Secretaries shall report on April 1 of each year” are substituted for “They shall, within one year after the effective date of the Act, and annually thereafter, report” to omit executed words and to specify the date of April 1 because the President prescribed April 1, 1967, as the effective date of the Department of Transportation Act (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931) by Executive Order No. 11340, March 30, 1967 (32 F.R. 5443). The word “consider” is substituted for “determine” for consistency.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsecs. (a)(2) and (c), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 114–94, § 1310(1)(A), substituted “operating administration or secretarial office that has expertise but” for “operating authority that” and inserted “proposed multimodal” after “with respect to a”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 114–94, § 1310(1)(B), added par. (2) and struck out former par. (2). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The term ‘lead authority’ means a Department of Transportation operating administration or secretarial office that—

“(A) is the lead authority over a proposed multimodal project; and

“(B) has determined that the components of the project that fall under the modal expertise of the lead authority—

“(i) satisfy the conditions for a categorical exclusion under implementing regulations or procedures of the lead authority under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and

“(ii) do not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under that Act.”

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–94, § 1310(2), inserted “or title 23” after “under this title”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–94, § 1310(3), added subsec. (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) which related to application of categorical exclusions for multimodal projects.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 114–94, § 1310(3), added subsec. (d) and struck out former subsec. (d). Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

“(1) In general.—A cooperating authority shall provide modal expertise to the lead authority on such aspects of the multimodal project in which the cooperating authority has expertise.

“(2) Use of categorical exclusion.—In a case described in paragraph (1), the 1 or more categorical exclusions of a cooperating authority may be applied by the lead authority once the cooperating authority reviews the project on behalf of the lead authority and determines the project satisfies the conditions for a categorical exclusion under the implementing regulations or procedures of the cooperating authority under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and this section.”

2012–Pub. L. 112–141 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to joint activities with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–94 effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1003 of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as a note under section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Effective 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 Title 23, Highways.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 343 cases, 1936–2020 · leading case: Doreen M. White v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doreen M. White v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1979). · cites it 6× “The court declined to find an independent right of recovery in tort against Superior under federal law because it concluded that fellow employees were outside the scope of the protection Congress sought to confer on the public by 49 U.”
Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999). · cites it 2× “[19] At the time the FHWA promulgated the current visual acuity standard, the agency was acting pursuant to § 204(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U. S. C. § 304 (a) (1970 ed.), see n. 1, supra, which likewise required the agency to…”
Paul R. Newhouse, Jr., Suki R. Kuresa & Elwin L. Adarna, Cross-Appellants v. Robert's Ilima Tours, Inc., Cross-Appellees, 708 F.2d 436 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “49 U.S.C. § 304 (a)(1). Thus, the FLSA provides for overtime pay for employees generally, while the MCA authorizes the Secretary to establish maximum hours for certain employees in a particular industry.”
Prof'l Drivers Council, John Torbet, & David Gaibis v. Bureau of Motor Carrier Saf., & United States of Am., 706 F.2d 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “” 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a)(l)-(2) (emphasis added).”
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Schwerman Trucking Co. of Virginia, Inc., a Corp., 540 F.2d 1200 (4th Cir. 1976). · cites it 4× “§ 213 (b)(1) which provides in part: “(b) The provisions of section 207 of this title [maximum hours] shall not apply with respect to— (1) any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service…”
United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370 (1962). · cites it 4× “In an investigation initiated by it under 49 U. S. C. § 304 (c), [1] the Interstate Commerce Commission held that appellees who leased their motor vehicles and hired *372 their services as drivers to the appellee Oklahoma Furniture Manufacturing Company (hereinafter "Oklahoma")…”
Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (1948). · cites it 3× “546 , 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a) (1). [2] "SEC. 7. (a) No employer shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce — (1) for a workweek longer than forty-four hours during the first…”
Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor, Plaintiff v. Union Pac. Motor Freight Co., a Corp., 650 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Union Pacific argues that its dispatchers’ duties affect the safety of operation of vehicles used in interstate commerce and that its dispatchers are subject to regulation by the Secretary of Transportation under section 4 of the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 304 , and…”
Carol Jean Vosch, of the Last Will of Charles Lowry, Deceased & David Gaibis & Others Similarly Situated v. Werner Cont'l, Inc., 734 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “A Gaibis and Lowry’s complaint as amended appears to seek relief directly under the FMCS regulations and § 304 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 304 (1976). 7 Section 304 of the Interstate Commerce Act establishes the authority of the ICC (and now the BMCS), see note 3…”
Michael Bilyou, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2002). “546 , § 204(a); 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a) (repealed). 6 . Certificate or permit; transportation within scope, and in furtherance, of primary Rusiness enterprise.”
Armstrong v. United States Fire Ins., 606 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). · cites it 2× “Because Wright was a statutory employee of Superior by virtue of 49 U.S.C. § 304 (e), the Fifth Circuit agreed that Wright’s mother was barred by Georgia law from seeking a remedy apart from workmen’s compensation.”
Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (1947). · cites it 2× “546 , 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a) (1), (2) and (3). [2] "( 2 ) Loaders.”
Show all 343 citing cases →
49 U.S.C. § 304(a): 3 cases
Harshman v. Well Serv., Inc., 248 F. Supp. 953 (W.D. Pa. 1964).
Faulkner v. Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co., 32 F. Supp. 590 (E.D. Ark. 1940).
Flanzbaum v. M & M Transp. Co., 203 F. Supp. 365 (E.D.N.Y 1962).
49 U.S.C. § 304(c): 1 case
Drum v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 275 (W.D. Okla. 1960).
49 U.S.C. § 304(c)(2): 1 case
Pittsburgh-Johnstown-Altoona Express, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 554 A.2d 137 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).
49 U.S.C. § 304(e): 1 case
Farmer v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 266 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. 1980).
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.