Page 91 TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS § 130

1See References in Text note below.

‘‘(e) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ROADS.—For purposes of

this section, North Carolina State Routes 12, 45, 306,

615, and 168 and United States Route 421 in the State of

North Carolina shall be treated as principal arterials.

For further purposes of this section, the access road

from Interstate Business Route 75 to the Sugar Island

Ferry Service in Chippewa County, Michigan, and the

access road from United States Route 31 to the Beaver

Island Ferry Service in Charlevoix County, Michigan,

shall be treated as principal arterials.’’

STUDY TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF STATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL ROADS

INCORPORATED INTO INTERSTATE SYSTEM

Section 164 of Pub. L. 95–599, as amended by Pub. L.

96–106, §16, Nov. 19, 1979, 93 Stat. 798, directed Secretary

of Transportation to report not later than July 1, 1980,

respecting extent of outstanding bonded indebtedness

for each State as of Jan. 1, 1979, incurred by each State

or public authority prior to June 29, 1956, for road construction or portions incorporated within Interstate

System, and methods of allocating bonded indebtedness

and removal of toll provisions.

RICHMOND-PETERSBURG TURNPIKE

Section 131 of Pub. L. 91–605 provided that: ‘‘The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to amend any

agreement heretofore entered into under the provisions

of section 129(d) of title 23, United States Code, in order

to permit the continuation of tolls on the existing

Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike to finance the construction within the existing termini of such turnpike

of two lanes thereon in addition to the lanes in existence on the date of enactment of this section [Dec. 31,

1970] necessary to meet traffic and highway safety requirements. Any amended agreement entered into for

such purposes shall provide assurances that the existing turnpike (including the additional lanes) shall become free to the public upon the collection of tolls sufficient to liquidate all construction costs, and the costs

of maintenance, operation, and debt service during the

period of toll collections to liquidate such construction

costs, but in no event shall tolls be collected after date

of maturity of those bonds outstanding on the date of

enactment of this section [Dec. 31, 1970] issued for construction of such turnpike having the latest maturity

date.’’

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 124, 148, 301 of

this title; title 33 section 535f.

§ 130. Railway-highway crossings

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d) 1 of

section 120 of this title and subsection (b) of this

section, the entire cost of construction of

projects for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings, including the separation

or protection of grades at crossings, the reconstruction of existing railroad grade crossing

structures, and the relocation of highways to

eliminate grade crossings, may be paid from

sums apportioned in accordance with section 104

of this title. In any case when the elimination of

the hazards of a railway-highway crossing can

be effected by the relocation of a portion of a

railway at a cost estimated by the Secretary to

be less than the cost of such elimination by one

of the methods mentioned in the first sentence

of this section, then the entire cost of such relocation project, except as provided in subsection

(d) 1 of section 120 of this title and subsection (b)

of this section, may be paid from sums apportioned in accordance with section 104 of this

title.

(b) The Secretary may classify the various

types of projects involved in the elimination of

hazards of railway-highway crossings, and may

set for each such classification a percentage of

the costs of construction which shall be deemed

to represent the net benefit to the railroad or

railroads for the purpose of determining the

railroad’s share of the cost of construction. The

percentage so determined shall in no case exceed

10 per centum. The Secretary shall determine

the appropriate classification of each project.

(c) Any railroad involved in a project for the

elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings paid for in whole or in part from sums made

available for expenditure under this title, or

prior Acts, shall be liable to the United States

for the net benefit to the railroad determined

under the classification of such project made

pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. Such

liability to the United States may be discharged

by direct payment to the State highway department of the State in which the project is located, in which case such payment shall be credited to the cost of the project. Such payment

may consist in whole or in part of materials and

labor furnished by the railroad in connection

with the construction of such project. If any

such railroad fails to discharge such liability

within a six-month period after completion of

the project, it shall be liable to the United

States for its share of the cost, and the Secretary shall request the Attorney General to institute proceedings against such railroad for the

recovery of the amount for which it is liable

under this subsection. The Attorney General is

authorized to bring such proceedings on behalf

of the United States, in the appropriate district

court of the United States, and the United

States shall be entitled in such proceedings to

recover such sums as it is considered and adjudged by the court that such railroad is liable

for in the premises. Any amounts recovered by

the United States under this subsection shall be

credited to miscellaneous receipts.

(d) SURVEY AND SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS.—Each

State shall conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those

railroad crossings which may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for

this purpose. At a minimum, such a schedule

shall provide signs for all railway-highway

crossings.

(e) FUNDS FOR PROTECTIVE DEVICES.—At least

1

⁄2 of the funds authorized for and expended

under this section shall be available for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. Sums authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section shall be available for obligation in the same manner as funds

apportioned under section 104(b)(1) of this title.

(f) APPORTIONMENT.—Twenty-five percent of

the funds authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this section shall be apportioned to the

States in the same manner as sums are apportioned under section 104(b)(2) of this title, 25 percent of such funds shall be apportioned to the

States in the same manner as sums are apportioned under section 104(b)(6) of this title, and 50
§ 130 TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS Page 92

2So in original. Probably should be ‘‘railroad-highway’’.

percent of such funds shall be apportioned to the

States in the ratio that total railway-highway

crossings in each State bears to the total of such

crossings in all States. The Federal share payable on account of any project financed with

funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out

this section shall be 90 percent of the cost thereof.

(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—Each State shall report

to the Secretary not later than December 30 of

each year on the progress being made to implement the railway-highway crossings program

authorized by this section and the effectiveness

of such improvements. Each State report shall

contain an assessment of the costs of the various treatments employed and subsequent accident experience at improved locations. The Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives not

later than April 1 of each year, on the progress

being made by the State in implementing

projects to improve railway-highway crossings.

The report shall include, but not be limited to,

the number of projects undertaken, their distribution by cost range, road system, nature of

treatment, and subsequent accident experience

at improved locations. In addition, the Secretary’s report shall analyze and evaluate each

State program, identify any State found not to

be in compliance with the schedule of improvements required by subsection (d) and include

recommendations for future implementation of

the railroad highway2 crossings program.

(h) USE OF FUNDS FOR MATCHING.—Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section may be used to provide a local government

with funds to be used on a matching basis when

State funds are available which may only be

spent when the local government produces

matching funds for the improvement of railwayhighway crossings.

(i) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR AT-GRADE CROSSING CLOSURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of this section and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a State may, from sums

available to the State under this section,

make incentive payments to local governments in the State upon the permanent closure by such governments of public at-grade

railway-highway crossings under the jurisdiction of such governments.

(2) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS BY RAILROADS.—A

State may not make an incentive payment

under paragraph (1) to a local government

with respect to the closure of a crossing unless

the railroad owning the tracks on which the

crossing is located makes an incentive payment to the government with respect to the

closure.

(3) AMOUNT OF STATE PAYMENT.—The amount

of the incentive payment payable to a local

government by a State under paragraph (1)

with respect to a crossing may not exceed the

lesser of—

(A) the amount of the incentive payment

paid to the government with respect to the

crossing by the railroad concerned under

paragraph (2); or

(B) $7,500.

(4) USE OF STATE PAYMENTS.—A local government receiving an incentive payment from a

State under paragraph (1) shall use the

amount of the incentive payment for transportation safety improvements.

(Pub. L. 85–767, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 903; Pub. L.

100–17, title I, §121(a), Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 159;

Pub. L. 104–59, title III, §325(a), Nov. 28, 1995, 109

Stat. 591; Pub. L. 104–205, title III, §353(b), Sept.

30, 1996, 110 Stat. 2980.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT

Subsection (d) of section 120 of this title, referred to

in subsec. (a), was struck out and former subsec. (e) of

section 120 was redesignated subsec. (d) by Pub. L.

102–240, title I, §1021(a), (b)(2), Dec. 18, 1991, 105 Stat.

1950, 1951.

AMENDMENTS

1996—Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 104–205 added subsec. (i).

1995—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104–59 substituted ‘‘Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’’ for ‘‘Committee on Public Works and Transportation’’ in third

sentence.

1987—Subsecs. (d) to (h). Pub. L. 100–17 added subsecs.

(d) to (h).

FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION

Section 351(b), (c) of Pub. L. 104–59 provided that:

‘‘(b) SAFETY ENFORCEMENT.—

‘‘(1) COOPERATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE

AGENCIES.—The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Office of Motor Carriers within

the Federal Highway Administration shall cooperate

and work, on a continuing basis, with the National

Association of Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and

Operation Lifesaver, Inc., to improve compliance

with and enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings.

‘‘(2) REPORT.—Not later than June 1, 1998, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report indicating—

‘‘(A) how the Department of Transportation

worked with the entities referred to in paragraph

(1) to improve the awareness of the highway and

commercial vehicle safety and law enforcement

communities of regulations and safety challenges

at railroad-highway grade crossings; and

‘‘(B) how resources are being allocated to better

address these challenges and enforce such regulations.

‘‘(c) FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP.—

‘‘(1) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—

‘‘(A) HAZARDS TO SAFETY.—Certain railroad-highway grade crossings present inherent hazards to the

safety of railroad operations and to the safety of

persons using those crossings. It is in the public interest—

‘‘(i) to promote grade crossing safety and reduce

risk at high risk railroad-highway grade crossings; and

‘‘(ii) to reduce the number of grade crossings

while maintaining the reasonable mobility of the

American people and their property, including

emergency access.

‘‘(B) EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS.—Effective programs to

reduce the number of unneeded and unsafe railroadhighway grade crossings require the partnership of

Federal, State, and local officials and agencies, and

affected railroads.

‘‘(C) HIGHWAY PLANNING.—Promotion of a balanced national transportation system requires that

highway planning specifically take into consideration grade crossing safety.
Page 93 TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS § 130

‘‘(2) PARTNERSHIP AND OVERSIGHT.—The Secretary

shall encourage each State to make progress toward

achievement of the purposes of this subsection.’’

VEHICLE PROXIMITY ALERT SYSTEM

Pub. L. 102–240, title I, §1072, Dec. 18, 1991, 105 Stat.

2012, provided that: ‘‘The Secretary shall coordinate

the field testing of the vehicle proximity alert system

and comparable systems to determine their feasibility

for use by priority vehicles as an effective railroadhighway grade crossing safety device. In the event the

vehicle proximity alert or a comparable system proves

to be technologically and economically feasible, the

Secretary shall develop and implement appropriate

programs under section 130 of title 23, United States

Code, to provide for installation of such devices where

appropriate.’’

RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSING HAZARDS; NATIONAL

HIGHWAY INFORMATION PROGRAM FUNDING

Pub. L. 100–457, title III, §324, Sept. 30, 1988, 102 Stat.

2150, provided that: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall make available $250,000

per year for a national public information program to

educate the public of the inherent hazard at railwayhighway crossings. Such funds shall be made available

out of funds authorized to be appropriated out of the

Highway Trust Fund, pursuant to section 130 of title 23,

United States Code.’’

Similar provisions were contained in the following

prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(l) [title III, §339], Dec. 22, 1987,

101 Stat. 1329–358, 1329–386.

RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS STUDY AND REPORT

Section 159 of Pub. L. 100–17 directed Secretary of

Transportation to conduct a study of national highway-railroad crossing improvement and maintenance

needs, with Secretary to consult with State highway

administrations, the Association of American Railroads, highway safety groups, and any other appropriate entities in carrying out this study, and directed

Secretary, not later than 24 months after Apr. 2, 1987,

to submit a final report to Congress on results of the

study along with recommendations of how crossing

needs can be addressed in a cost effective manner.

STUDY AND INVESTIGATION OF ALLEVIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ETC., IMPACTS OF INCREASED

UNIT TRAIN TRAFFIC

Pub. L. 95–599, title I, §162, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2720,

authorized Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation

with State highway departments and appropriate officials of local government, to undertake a comprehensive investigation and study of techniques for alleviating the environmental, social, economic, and developmental impacts of increased unit train traffic to meet

national energy requirements in communities located

along rail corridors experiencing such increased traffic

and directed Secretary to report to Congress on results

of such investigation and study not later than Mar. 31,

1979.

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS; REPORTS TO PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS; APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION; HIGHWAY SAFETY STUDY,

REPORT TO CONGRESS

Pub. L. 93–87, title I, §163, Aug. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 280,

as amended by Pub. L. 93–643, §104, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat.

2282; Pub. L. 94–280, title I, §140(a)–(e), May 5, 1976, 90

Stat. 444; Pub. L. 95–599, title I, §134(a)–(c), Nov. 6, 1978,

92 Stat. 2709; Pub. L. 96–470, title II, §209(b), Oct. 19,

1980, 94 Stat. 2245; Pub. L. 97–424, title I, §151, Jan. 6,

1983, 96 Stat. 2132; Pub. L. 100–17, title I, §§133(c)(3), 148,

Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 172, 181; Pub. L. 100–202, §101(l)

[title III, §346], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–358, 1329–388;

Pub. L. 102–240, title I, §1037, Dec. 18, 1991, 105 Stat. 1987;

Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1121(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat.

724, provided that:

‘‘(a)(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter

into such arrangements as may be necessary to carry

out demonstration projects in Lincoln, Nebraska,

Wheeling, West Virginia, and Elko, Nevada, for the relocation of railroad lines from the central area of the

cities in conformance with the methodology developed

under proposals submitted to the Secretary by the respective cities. The cities shall (1) have a local agency

with legal authority to relocate railroad facilities, levy

taxes for such purpose, and a record of prior accomplishment; and (2) have a current relocation plan for

such lines which has a favorable benefit-cost ratio involving and having the unanimous approval of three or

more class 1 railroads in Lincoln, Nebraska, and the

two class 1 railroads in Wheeling, West Virginia, and

Elko, Nevada, and multicivic, local, and State agencies, and which provides for the elimination of a substantial number of the existing railway-road conflict

points within the city.

‘‘(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into

such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a

demonstration project in Lafayette, Indiana, for relocation of railroad lines from the central area of the

city. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this paragraph $360,000 for the fiscal year ending

June 30, 1975.

‘‘(b) The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out

a demonstration project for the elimination or protection of certain public ground-level rail-highway crossings in, or in the vicinity of, Springfield, Illinois.

‘‘(c) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into

such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out

demonstration projects in Brownsville, Texas, and Matamoros, Mexico, for the relocation of railroad lines

from the central area of the cities in conformance with

the methodology developed under proposals submitted

to the Secretary by the Brownsville Navigation District, providing for the construction of an international

bridge and for the elimination of a substantial number

of existing railway-road conflict points within the cities.

‘‘(d) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into

such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a

demonstration project in East Saint Louis, Illinois, for

the relocation of rail lines between Thirteenth and

Forty-third Streets, in accordance with methodology

approved by the Secretary. The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out a demonstration project for the

relocation of rail lines in the vicinity of Carbondale, Illinois.

‘‘(e) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into

such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a

demonstration project in New Albany, Indiana, for the

elimination of the existing rail loop and relocation of

rail lines to a location between Vincennes Street and

East Eighth Street, in accordance with methodology

approved by the Secretary.

‘‘(f) The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out

demonstration projects for the construction of an overpass at the rail-highway grade crossing on Cottage

Grove Avenue between One Hundred Forty-second

Street and One Hundred Thirty-eighth Street in the

village of Dolton, Illinois, and the construction of an

overpass at the rail-highway grade crossing at Vermont

Street and the Rock Island Railroad tracks in the city

of Blue Island, Illinois.

‘‘(g) The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out

a demonstration project for the elimination of the

ground level railroad highway crossing on United

States Route 69 in Greenville, Texas.

‘‘(h) The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out

a demonstration project in Anoka, Minnesota, for the

construction of an underpass at the Seventh Avenue

and County Road 7 railroad-highway grade crossing.

‘‘(i) The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out

a demonstration project in Metairie, Jefferson Parish,

Louisiana, for the relocation or grade separation of rail

lines whichever he deems most feasible in order to

eliminate certain grade level railroad highway crossings.
§ 131 TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS Page 94

‘‘(j) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into

such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a

demonstration project in Augusta, Georgia, for the relocation of railroad lines and for the purpose of eliminating highway railroad grade crossings.

‘‘(k) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into

such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a

demonstration project in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, for the

relocation of railroad lines for the purpose of eliminating highway railroad grade crossings.

‘‘(l) The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out

a demonstration project in Sherman, Texas, for the relocation of rail lines in order to eliminate the ground

level railroad crossing at the crossing of the Southern

Pacific and Frisco Railroads with Grand Avenue-Roberts Road.

‘‘(m) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter

into such arrangements as may be necessary to carry

out a demonstration project in Hammond, Indiana, for

the relocation of railroad lines for the purposes of

eliminating highway railroad grade crossings.

‘‘(n) The Federal share payable on account of such

projects shall be the Federal share provided in section

120(a) of title 23, United States Code. [sic] except those

railroad-highway crossings segments which are already

engaged in or have completed the preparation of the

plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the construction of the segment involved shall retain the Federal share as specified in subsection [sic] 163(n) [this

subsection] as amended by section 134 of the Surface

Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 [section 134 of

Pub. L. 95–599].

‘‘[(o) Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1121(e), Dec. 21,

1995, 109 Stat. 724.]

‘‘(p) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this section (other than subsection (l)), not to exceed $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,

$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and

$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976,

$6,250,000, for the period beginning July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, $26,400,000 for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 1977, and $51,400,000 for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1978, $70,000,000 for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1979, and $90,000,000 for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, $100,000,000 for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, and

$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1982, and $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983, and $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1984, and $50,000,000 for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 1985, and $50,000,000 for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1986, and $15,000,000 per fiscal

year for each of fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991,

1992, 1993, and 1994, except that not more than twothirds of all funds authorized and expended under authority of this section in any fiscal year shall be appropriated out of the Highway Trust fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any project

which is not under construction, according to the Secretary of Transportation, by September 30, 1985, shall

not be eligible for additional funds under this authorization.

‘‘(q) The Secretary, in cooperation with State highway departments and local officials, shall conduct a

full and complete investigation and study of the problem of providing increased highway safety by the relocation of railroad lines from the central area of cities

on a nationwide basis, and report to the Congress his

recommendations resulting from such investigation

and study not later than July 1, 1975, including an estimate of the cost of such a program. Funds authorized

to carry out section 307 of title 23, United States Code,

are authorized to be used to carry out the investigation

and study required by this subsection.’’

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS; INCLUSION OF PROJECTS AT TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA

Pub. L. 94–387, title I, §101, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1176,

provided in part: ‘‘That section 163 of Public Law 93–87

[set out as a note above] is hereby amended to include

projects at Terre Haute, Indiana.’’

RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS

Pub. L. 93–87, title II, §203, Aug. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 283,

as amended by Pub. L. 94–280, title II, §203, May 5, 1976,

90 Stat. 452; Pub. L. 95–599, title II, §203, Nov. 6, 1978, 92

Stat. 2728; Pub. L. 96–470, title II, §209(d), Oct. 19, 1980,

94 Stat. 2245; Pub. L. 97–327, §5(b), Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat.

1612; Pub. L. 97–424, title II, §205, Jan. 6, 1983, 96 Stat.

2139, which directed each State to conduct a survey of

all highways to identify those railway crossings requiring separation, relocation, or protective devices and to

establish and implement a schedule of projects for such

purpose, which at a minimum was to provide for signs

at all crossings, authorized appropriations for elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings, provided for State apportionments and for the Federal

share of the costs of projects, required each State to

annually report to the Secretary of Transportation and

the Secretary of Transportation to annually report to

Congress on progress in implementing railroad-highway crossings program, and authorized use of matching

funds with local governments for improvement of railroad crossings, was repealed by Pub. L. 100–17, title I,

§121(b), Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 160.

Highway authorizations provisions of section 104(a)

(1) and (2) of Pub. L. 93–87, referred to in section 203(d)

of Pub. L. 93–87 provided that:

‘‘(a) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of

title 23, United States Code, the following sums are

hereby authorized to be appropriated:

‘‘(1) For the Federal-aid primary system in rural

areas, out of the Highway Trust Fund, $680,000,000 for

the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $700,000,000 for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $700,000,000 for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. For the Federal-aid

secondary system in rural areas, out of Highway Trust

Fund, $390,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1974, $400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,

and $400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.

‘‘(2) For the Federal-aid urban system, out of the

Highway Trust Fund, $780,000,000 for the fiscal year

ending June 30, 1974, $800,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $800,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. For the extensions of the Federal-aid

primary and secondary systems in urban areas, out of

the Highway Trust Fund $290,000,000 for the fiscal year

ending June 30, 1974, $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.’’

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 104, 121, 133, 307,

409 of this title.

§ 131. Control of outdoor advertising

(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares

that the erection and maintenance of outdoor

advertising signs, displays, and devices in areas

adjacent to the Interstate System and the primary system should be controlled in order to

protect the public investment in such highways,

to promote the safety and recreational value of

public travel, and to preserve natural beauty.

(b) Federal-aid highway funds apportioned on

or after January 1, 1968, to any State which the

Secretary determines has not made provision for

effective control of the erection and maintenance along the Interstate System and the primary system of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices which are within six hundred

and sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-ofway and visible from the main traveled way of

the system, and Federal-aid highway funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1975, or after