§ 123. Relocation of utility facilities

(a) When a State shall pay for the cost of relocation of utility facilities necessitated by the construction of a project on any Federal-aid highway, Federal funds may be used to reimburse the State for such cost in the same proportion as Federal funds are expended on the project. Federal funds shall not be used to reimburse the State under this section when the payment to the utility violates the law of the State or violates a legal contract between the utility and the State. Such reimbursement shall be made only after evidence satisfactory to the Secretary shall have been presented to him substantiating the fact that the State has paid such cost from its own funds with respect to Federal-aid highway projects for which Federal funds are obligated subsequent to April 16, 1958, for work, including relocation of utility facilities.

(b) The term “utility”, for the purposes of this section, shall include publicly, privately, and cooperatively owned utilities.

(c) The term “cost of relocation”, for the purposes of this section, shall include the entire amount paid by such utility properly attributable to such relocation after deducting therefrom any increase in the value of the new facility and any salvage value derived from the old facility.

(Pub. L. 85–767, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 900; Pub. L. 100–17, title I, § 133(b)(8), Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 171; Pub. L. 112–141, div. A, title I, § 1104(c)(3), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 427.)

Amendments

Amendments

2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–141 substituted “on any Federal-aid highway” for “on any Federal-aid system”.

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–17 substituted “any Federal-aid system,” for “the Federal-aid primary or secondary systems or on the Interstate System, including extensions thereof within urban areas,”.

Effective Date Of Amendment

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 this title.

Miscellaneous

Study of Procurement Practices and Project Delivery

Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1213(e), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 201, provided that:

“(1) Study.—The Comptroller General shall conduct a study to assess the impact that a utility company’s failure to relocate its facilities in a timely manner has on the delivery and cost of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects. The study shall also assess the following:

“(A) Methods States use to mitigate such delays, including the use of the courts to compel cooperation.

“(B) The prevalence and use of incentives to utility companies for early completion of utility relocations on Federal-aid transportation project sites and, conversely, penalties assessed on utility companies for utility relocation delays on such projects.

“(C) The extent to which States have used available technologies, such as subsurface utility engineering, early in the design of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects so as to eliminate or reduce the need for or delays due to utility relocations.

“(D) Whether individual States compensate transportation contractors for business costs incurred by the contractors when Federal-aid highway and bridge projects under contract to them are delayed by utility-company-caused delays in utility relocations and any methods used by States in making any such compensation.

“(2) Report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [June 9, 1998], the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study with any recommendations the Comptroller General determines appropriate as a result of the study.”