<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>FEDERAL HIGHWAY DBE PROGRAM STRUCK DOWN IN MINNESOTA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/541227</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A federal court in Minnesota has declared unconstitutional the federal-aid highway program's disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program in that state.  The ruling in lawsuits brought by Sherbrooke Sodding Company, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota, is the first to strike down DBE contracting requirements for the $20-billion-plus federal-aid road program.  It is unclear whether the decision can be extended to other states.  The DBE program sets a goal of having 10% of federal-aid highway dollars go to disadvantaged firms.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/541227</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF AIR PASSENGERS AND PILOTS: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TAKES FLIGHT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/413739</link>
      <description><![CDATA[With respect to air travel, the Fourth Amendment directly impacts the legality of searches at immigration, the permissibility of drug testing of air carrier personnel and pilots in particular, and the use of aircraft for domestic criminal surveillance.  Law and order demand that the airways be free of criminals endangering the lives of innocent passengers in hijackings and other terrorist activities.  Yet, most of the criminals apprehended in weapons searches at airports are unarmed.  Most of the weapons searches uncover illicit drugs rather than weapons.  It would technically be possible to implant felons with microchips via hypodermic injections, which would announce their status as felons as they passed through airport arrival and departure gates.  This possibility demonstrates the tension between the needs of society in preventing terrorism and illicit drug traffic and the needs to preserve for the common citizen the liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This paper explores the pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court and federal courts in relation to these issues.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/413739</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BACK FROM THE GRAVE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/358288</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Article describes how hundreds of manufacturers are facing back-billing from shippers for services during the past decade. As a result of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Congress lowered entry barriers to the trucking industry, and prices fell. However, the procedure that requires carriers to file new rates with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), was still in effect. After several trucking firms went bankrupt in 1985, their trustees began to search for sources of revenue. They discovered that many companies had neglected to file new negotiated rates with the ICC. Therefore, because carriers had not filed proper paperwork, the shippers could be rebilled at the old, higher rates. The article includes an explanation of the resultant court and Congressional battles over back-billing.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/358288</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HOW TO DISSOLVE THE TMI CONSENT DECREE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/353899</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article discusses the class action suit that the United States Attorney General brought against 350 of the nation's largest trucking companies. Together, the defendant companies embraced virtually the entire trucking industry. The complaint alleged that the companies' seniority systems violated Title VII and Executive Order 11246; and that the defendants had engaged in systematic discrimination against black and Spanish employees and applicants. The article covers various options that trucking companies have; which areas that trucking companies need to examine within their own operations; achieving substantial compliance with the decree; the status of affirmative action; dissolving the decree; and recommendations to trucking companies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/353899</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AUTOMOBILE STOP AND FRISK</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/269393</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Discussion of the development and scope of automobile stop and frisk in relation to the federal courts.  The following cases were covered:  Terry v. Ohio (the Supreme Court found that a protective search of the person of a detainee, absent probable cause, is not per se unreasonable); Adams v. Williams (expands scope of the Terry search to suspects in automobiles); Chimel v. California and New York v. Belton (involving a search incident to arrest and searchable areas); Michigan v. Long  (expands the Terry search from the person of a suspect to the passenger compartment and containers located therein); United States v. Aldridge (Eleventh Circuit Court, of Appeals upholds the validity of a police officers protective search of a passenger compartment during an investigatory stop).  Thus, in an investigatory stop, an officer may search the passenger compartment of an automobile, although the officer does not have probable cause to arrest, only if the officer has a reasonable and articulable belief that the detainee is potentially dangerous.  This is differentiated from probable cause decisions (such as United States v. Ross).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 1985 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/269393</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/269394</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This is a general discussion of United States Supreme Court cases regarding those warrantless searches that involve vehicles and of the application of the exclusionary rule to evidence discovered by law enforcement officers during such searches.  Officers should also consult their local legal advisors or prosecutors for an analysis of decisions in these areas by the courts in their respective states.  The Supreme Court cases include - Carroll v. United States, Chambers v. Maroney, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, United States v. Ross, United States v. Chadwick, Arkansas v. Sanders, Chimel v. California, New York v. Belton, South Dakota v. Opperman and Texas v. Brown.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 1985 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/269394</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS LAW NEWSLETTER</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/208928</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This issue of the newsletter provides an update on recent developments in public construction contract law.  It also contains two articles: Federal Court Improvement Act of 1982: Its Impact on Federal Contract Litigation, by J. R. Dann, and A Summary of State Laws and Procedures for settlement of Highway Construction Contract Claims, by R. D. Netherton.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/208928</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FEDERAL COURT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982: ITS IMPACT ON FEDERAL CONTRACT LITIGATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/208929</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 (FCIA) abolished the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and created the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Claims Court.  Federal contract disputes were previously the jurisdiction of the old Court of Claims which had both trial and appellate functions.  The FCIA eliminates this awkward and confusing structure by giving the trial function to the new Claims Court decisions in addition to carrying out the functions of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.  The Claims court is also authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief involving pre-award contract disputes. A review of several key early decision of both courts suggest they have a fairly narrow and restrained view of their authority in precontract-award situations.  Some commentators have intimated that such caution may stem in part from practical considerations.  The Claims Court and the various government agency contract appeals board have co-extensive jurisdiction over government contractor appeals.  The CAFC has ruled that agency boards cannot award attorney fees, creating an incentive for contractors to opt for the Claims Court.  If in addition the Claims Court were preceived as more liberal than agency boards in granting relief to contractors, the resulting case load would create an imbalance within the Federal contract dispute resolution system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/208929</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FHWA NOTES ACTIVITIES IN BID RIGGING ARENA, APPLICATION OF "DAVIS-BACON" AND COURT OF CLAIMS REORGANIZATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/208943</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Because many bid rigging cases involve Federal-aid contracts, the Federal government has been carrying on its own investigations in cooperation with the affected states, mostly in the south and midwest.  So far, the Department of Justice investigations have been active in 17 states.  There is every indication that the investigation will spread to others.  The FHWA has interpreted 23 United States Code Section113 to mean that "Davis-Bacon" wage rates will not be incorporated in post-interstate construction "4R" project contracts, except for those projects that provide for new constructional then only where the new construction elements represent at least 50 percent of the cost of the total project.  Formerly, disputes between states and the federal government over federal participation in contract claims were adjudicated in the United States Court of Claims which had both trial and appellate functions.  Under the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, the appellate functions will be handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the trial functions will be performed by the United States Claim Court.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/208943</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OFFICERS GIVEN GREATER CAR SEARCH AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/189485</link>
      <description><![CDATA[On June 1st, 1982, the United States Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote, that an officer can open and search even closed containers in a car trunk any time he has "reasonable cause" to believe the car may contain contraband or incriminating evidence. This article reviews legal cases that led to this decision.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/189485</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE AIRBAG MANDATE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/187556</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Passive restraints were first proposed by the Federal Government in 1969. Under the Carter administration airbags or automatic seat belts in the front seat of new large cars were mandated by September 1981; new compacts by September, 1982; and small cars by September, 1983. The Reagan administration delayed the 1981 deadline shortly after taking office, then repealed the ruling entirely last October. This decision was overturned recently by a U.S. Court of Appeals. This article contains excerpts from the court's decision that set forth the rationale requiring airbags and passive restraint safety systems, excerpts from a report of the General Accounting Office on the effectiveness of airbags, and finally testimony from NHTSA Administrator Raymond A. Peck, Jr., representing the administration's point of view.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1983 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/187556</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HEALTH AND SAFETY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/182089</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This review of recent risk regulation policies takes NHTSA to task for rolling back its passive restraint standard without clearly articulating the economic rationale behind its decision, which opens the agency to the charge that it is more interested in helping the auto industry than in trying to select policies where the evidence is unclear. It faults NHTSA for refusing to calculate the cost per life of any of its regulations, and for not insisting that cost-effectiveness tests be included in its regulatory analyses. The author also contends NHTSA has also botched up its stand on bumper regulations through bureaucratic confusion. The article concludes that the cost-effectiveness of all of NHTSA's and the Transportation Department's policies on safety should be calculated so that resources can be relocated across these areas efficiently.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 1982 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/182089</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ISSUES IN NATIONAL AND STATE DEVELOPMENT POLICY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/45727</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper draws attention to 3 issues in state and national development policy.  The first concerns the paradox of decentralization.  It is pointed out that, although the federal government is encouraging decentralization of authority in the federal system and state and local governments are alleged to be free of statutory restrictions and administrative regulations, we are in a time of crisis.  In the past, such times have demand concentration of power in the hands of governmental bodies that are capable of action.  The second issue related to the growth in power of both state and federal legislatures.  This rising strength in relationship to the executive branch is viewed as altering current patterns of operation in ways that are currently impossible to predict.  The third issue concerns the declining autonomy of line agencies.  This is seen in the fact that highway departments and other agencies can no longer ignore the wishes of local elected officials.  Increasingly, the courts offer a means not only of blocking undesirable projects but also of forging viable alternatives.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/45727</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NOISE POLLUTION AT AIRPORTS-A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE SEVENTIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/138525</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper explores the general area of noise pollution caused by the airplane.  Noise control efforts by the air industry and the Federal government are reviewed.  Efforts by individuals to control noise pollution and to seek damages when harmed by noise and noise control efforts by local and State governments decisions are covered.  Focus is on the City of Burbank et al, v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., et al, Supreme Court of the United Strates, No. 71-1637, May 14, 1973, which indicates that the job of managing the airspace lies with the FAA and that noise control procedures must arise from the FAA and not through local regulation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 1974 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/138525</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY TACTICS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/133635</link>
      <description><![CDATA[IN MARYLAND, UNDER RULES OF COURT ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, FEDERAL COURT RULES ON DISCOVERY ARE GENERALLY FOLLOWED. PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY IS SOMETHING THAT HAS SAVED THE STATE ROADS COMMISSION IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITIONS BY GIVING FIVE DAYS NOTICE. THE INTERROGATORY HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE A VERY HELPFUL AND USEFUL TOOL AND IS A PART OF THE TRIAL PREPARATION OF A CASE IN MARYLAND. THE FORM USED IS PRESENTED.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 1970 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/133635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>