C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER G—ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS › PART 646—RAILROADS › Subpart B—Railroad-Highway Projects

23 C.F.R. § 646.200

Purpose and applicability

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

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to prescribe policies and procedures for advancing Federal-aid projects involving railroad facilities.

(b) This subpart, and all references hereinafter made to projects, applies to Federal-aid projects involving railroad facilities, including projects for the elimination of hazards of railroad-highway crossings, and other projects which use railroad properties or which involve adjustments required by highway construction to either railroad facilities or facilities that are jointly owned or used by railroad and utility companies.

(c) Additional instructions for projects involving the elimination of hazards of railroad/highway grade crossings pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 130 are set forth in 23 CFR part 924.

(d) Procedures on reimbursement for projects undertaken pursuant to this subpart are set forth in 23 CFR part 140, subpart I.

(e) Procedures on insurance required of contractors working on or about railroad right-of-way are set forth in 23 CFR part 646, subpart A.

[40 FR 16059, Apr. 9, 1975, as amended at 45 FR 20795, Mar. 31, 1980; 62 FR 45328, Aug. 27, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1990–2006 · leading case: Iowa, Chicago & E. R.R. Corp. v. Washington Cnty., Iowa, 384 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Iowa, Chicago & E. R.R. Corp. v. Washington Cnty., Iowa, 384 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2004). “See 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 (b). The regulations expressly preempt state cost-sharing laws when projects are federally funded.”
Hatfield v. Burlington N. R.R., 757 F. Supp. 1198 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 4× “6 The New Mexico court found that the Secretary acted with regard to the installation of warning devices at railroad crossings by the promulgation of the procedures outlined in 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 et seq. and by the adoption of the MUTCD as the national standard.”
Armijo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 754 F. Supp. 1526 (D.N.M. 1990). “The Secretary acted in this area with the promulgation of the procedures outlined in 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 et seq. and with the adoption of the MUTCD as the national standard.”
Hargrove v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 925 So. 2d 25 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “For example, 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 provides that: (a) The purpose of this subpart is to prescribe policies and procedures for advancing Federal-aid projects involving railroad facilities.”
Nye v. CSX Transp., Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 529 (N.D. Ohio 2004). “23 C.F.R. 646.200(a) and (b). Federal funding for these projects may be procured “through the Federal-aid funding source appropriate for the involved project.”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 759 F. Supp. 281 (D. Maryland 1991). “Pursuant to 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 (b) the regulations in the § 646.”
Liboy Ex Rel. Liboy v. Rogero Ex Rel. Rogero, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “23 C.F.R. § 646.200 . Although Florida Reg.”
Iowa & Chicago RR v. Washington Cnty. (8th Cir. 2004). “See 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 (b). The regulations expressly preempt state cost-sharing laws when projects are federally funded.”
Goodman v. State, 113 P.3d 822 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “” 23 C.F.R. § 646.200 (a). The standards for implementing grade crossing improvements, including the standards for adequate warning devices, are in 23 C.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 646.200(a) — 1 case
Nye v. CSX Transp., Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 529 (N.D. Ohio 2004). “23 C.F.R. 646.200(a) and (b). Federal funding for these projects may be procured “through the Federal-aid funding source appropriate for the involved project.”
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.