C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER G—ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS › PART 645—UTILITIES › Subpart A—Utility Relocations, Adjustments, and Reimbursement

23 C.F.R. § 645.103

Applicability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The provisions of this regulation apply to reimbursement claimed by a State transportation department (STD) for costs incurred under an approved and properly executed transportation department (TD)/utility agreement and for payment of costs incurred under all Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/utility agreements.

(b) Procedures on the accommodation of utilities are set forth in 23 CFR part 645, subpart B, Accommodation of Utilities.

(c) When the lines or facilities to be relocated or adjusted due to highway construction are privately owned, located on the owner's land, devoted exclusively to private use and not directly or indirectly serving the public, the provisions of the FHWA's right-of-way procedures in 23 CFR 710.203, apply. When applicable, under the foregoing conditions, the provisions of this regulation may be used as a guide to establish a cost-to-cure.

(d) The FHWA's reimbursement to the STD will be governed by State law (or State regulation) or the provisions of this regulation, whichever is more restrictive. When State law or regulation differs from this regulation, a determination shall be made by the STD subject to the concurrence of the FHWA as to which standards will govern, and the record documented accordingly, for each relocation encountered.

(e) For direct Federal projects, all references herein to the STD or TD are inapplicable, and it is intended that the FHWA be considered in the relative position of the STD or TD.

[50 FR 20345, May 15, 1985, as amended at 64 FR 71289, Dec. 21, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2004–2004 · leading case: Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc. v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 3 Misc. 3d 201 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc. v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 3 Misc. 3d 201 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004). “Prior to beginning the project, the State Department of Transportation (DOT) informed the Village that no grant funds could be used to fund the relocation of the utility poles, as the DOT considered this cost to be the responsibility of petitioner utility company (see, Highway…”
Orange & Rockland Utils. v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 2004 NY Slip Op 24017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty. 2004). “Prior to beginning the project, the State Department of Transportation (DOT) informed the Village that no grant funds could be used to fund the relocation of the utility poles, as the DOT considered this cost to be the responsibility of petitioner utility company ( see, Highway…”
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.