C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER G—ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS › PART 658—TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT, ROUTE DESIGNATIONS—LENGTH, WIDTH AND WEIGHT LIMITATIONS

23 C.F.R. § 658.19

Reasonable access

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

(a) No State may enact or enforce any law denying reasonable access to vehicles with dimensions authorized by the STAA between the NN and terminals and facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest. In addition, no State may enact or enforce any law denying reasonable access between the NN and points of loading and unloading to household goods carriers, motor carriers of passengers, and any truck tractor-semitrailer combination in which the semitrailer has a length not to exceed 28 feet (28.5 feet where allowed pursuant to § 658.13(b)(5) of this part) and which generally operates as part of a vehicle combination described in §§ 658.13(b)(5) and 658.15(a) of this part.

(b) All States shall make available to commercial motor vehicle operators information regarding their reasonable access provisions to and from the National Network.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State or local government from imposing any reasonable restriction, based on safety considerations, on access to points of loading and unloading by any truck tractor-semitrailer combination in which the semitrailer has a length not to exceed 28 1/2 feet and which generally operates as part of a vehicle combination described in §§ 658.13(b)(5) and 658.15(a).

(d) No State may enact or enforce any law denying access within 1 road-mile from the National Network using the most reasonable and practicable route available except for specific safety reasons on individual routes.

(e) Approval of access for specific vehicles on any individual route applies to all vehicles of the same type regardless of ownership. Distinctions between vehicle types shall be based only on significant, substantial differences in their operating characteristics.

(f) Blanket restrictions on 102-inch wide vehicles may not be imposed.

(g) Vehicle dimension limits shall not be more restrictive than Federal requirements.

(h) States shall ensure compliance with the requirements of this section for roads under the jurisdiction of local units of government.

(i)(1) Except in those States in which State law authorizes the operation of STAA-dimensioned vehicles on all public roads and highways, all States shall have an access review process that provides for the review of requests for access from the National Network.

(2) State access review processes shall provide for:

(i) One or more of the following:

(A) An analysis of the proposed access routes using observations or other data obtained from the operation of test vehicles over the routes;

(B) An analysis of the proposed access routes by application of vehicle templates to plans of the routes;

(C) A general provision for allowing access, without requiring a request, for commercial motor vehicles with semitrailers with a kingpin distance of 41 feet or less (measured from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle, if single, or the center of a group of rear axles). State safety analyses may be conducted on individual routes if warranted; and

(ii) All of the following:

(A) The denial of access to terminals and services only on the basis of safety and engineering analysis of the access route.

(B) The automatic approval of an access request if not acted upon within 90 days of receipt by the State. This provision shall become effective no later than 12 months following the effective date of this rule unless an extension is requested by the State and approved by FHWA.

(C) The denial of access for any 102-inch wide vehicles only on the basis of the characteristics of specific routes, in particular significant deficiencies in lane width.

(j)(1) Each State shall submit its access provisions to FHWA for approval within 6 months after June 1, 1990. In those States in which State law authorizes the operation of STAA-dimensioned vehicles on all public roads and highways, no submission or approval under this paragraph is required. If, in the future, such a State changes its authorizing legislation and restricts the operation of STAA-dimensioned vehicles, then compliance with these provisions will be necessary.

(2) The FHWA will review the access provisions as submitted by each State subject to the provisions in paragraph (j)(1) and approve those that are in compliance with the requirements of this section. The FHWA may, at a State's request, approve State provisions that differ from the requirements of this section if FHWA determines that they provide reasonable access for STAA-dimensioned vehicles and do not impose an unreasonable burden on motor freight carriers, shippers and receivers and service facility operators.

(3) Any State that does not have FHWA approved access provisions in effect within 1 year after June 1, 1990 shall follow the requirements and the criteria set forth in this section and section 658.5 and 658.19 for determining access for STAA-dimensioned vehicles to terminals and services. The FHWA may approve a State's request for a time extension if it is received by FHWA at least 1 month before the end of the 1 year period.

[53 FR 12149, Apr. 13, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 22763, June 1, 1990; 59 FR 30420, June 13, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Aux Sable Liquid Prods. v. Murphy, 526 F.3d 1028 (7th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aux Sable Liquid Prods. v. Murphy, 526 F.3d 1028 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “See 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 ; see also New Hampshire Motor Transp.”
Garza v. City of La Porte, 160 F. Supp. 3d 986 (S.D. Tex. 2016). · cites it 13× “Whether Summary Judgment is Appropriate For Either Party On the Remaining Federal Preemption Claim Garza claims that La Porte’s Ordinance is preempted by 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 because it “unreasonably restricted Mr.”
Town Of Delafield v. Cent. Transp. Kriewaldt, 2020 WI 61 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 3× “" 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 (a) (2018). The conjunction "and" separates and therefore categorizes terminals on the one hand, and facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest on the other hand.”
Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc. v. STEUDLE, 761 F. Supp. 2d 611 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 5× “§ 31114 (part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act) and an implementing regulation, 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 , which prohibit states from enacting laws and regulations restricting access to the interstate highway system, except in cases of safety considerations.”
New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n v. Town of Plaistow, 67 F.3d 326 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “23 C.F.R. § 658.19 . The guarantee of reasonable access thus has a formidable reach, extending to local regulatory measures that operate miles away from any interstate or national network highway.”
Town of Delafield v. Cent. Transp. Kriewaldt, 932 N.W.2d 423 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 31114 (a), or the related Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulation *426 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 (2018). It asserts, however, that a conflict arose in this case because the federal provisions "protect Central Transport's reasonable access to a terminal/delivery address," but…”
North Texas Nat. Select Material, LLC v. City of Denison, Texas (E.D. Tex. 2024). · cites it 6× “§ 31114 (a) and 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 . 5. Claim for Declaratory Judgment and Ultra Vires Action against Defendant Ronnie Bates.”
Armstrong v. Martocchio (D. Conn. 2021). · cites it 5× “Specifically, 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 (a) prohibits States from “enact[ing] or enforc[ing] any law denying reasonable access to vehicles .”
Pleasant Trucking, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 636 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). · cites it 8× “-19(i)(2)(ii)(B), 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 (j)(1), and 23 C.F.R. § 658.”
Aux Sable Liquid Pro v. Murphy, Kenneth (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “See 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 ; see also New Hampshire Motor Transp.”
N. Springs, Inc. v. Town of Wells (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “) Since Plaintiff Northern may be denied “reasonable access”, it is necessary to determine if Defendant Town’s ordinance conflicts with 23 CFR 658.19. See New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n v.”
Hanscom’s Truck Stop v. Portsmouth (D.N.H. 1998). “See New 5 See 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 (d) (“No State may enact or enforce any law denying access within 1 road-mile from the National Network using the most reasonable and practicable route available except for specific safety reasons on individual routes.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 658.19(a) — 1 case
Garza v. City of La Porte, 160 F. Supp. 3d 986 (S.D. Tex. 2016). “Whether Summary Judgment is Appropriate For Either Party On the Remaining Federal Preemption Claim Garza claims that La Porte’s Ordinance is preempted by 23 C.F.R. § 658.19 because it “unreasonably restricted Mr.”
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.