C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER H—RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENT › PART 752—LANDSCAPE AND ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT

23 C.F.R. § 752.5

Safety rest areas

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

(a) Safety rest areas should provide facilities reasonably necessary for the comfort, convenience, relaxation, and information needs of the motorist. Caretakers' quarters may be provided in conjunction with a safety rest area at such locations where accommodations are deemed necessary. All facilities within the rest area are to provide full consideration and accommodation for the handicapped.

(b) The State may permit the placement of vending machines in existing or new safety rest areas located on the rights-of-way of the Interstate system for the purpose of dispensing such food, drink, or other articles as the State determines are appropriate and desirable, except that the dispensing by any means, of petroleum products or motor vehicle replacement parts shall not be allowed. Such vending machines shall be operated by the State.

(c) The State may operate the vending machines directly or may contract with a vendor for the installation, operation, and maintenance of the vending machines. In permitting the placement of vending machines the State shall give priority to vending machines which are operated through the State licensing agency designated pursuant to section 2(a)(5) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, U.S.C. 107(a)(5).

(d) Access from the safety rest areas to adjacent publicly owned conservation and recreation areas may be permitted if access to these areas is only available through the rest area and if these areas or their usage does not adversely affect the facilities of the safety rest area.

(e) The scenic quality of the site, its accessibility and adaptability, and the availability of utilities are the prime considerations in the selection of rest area sites. A statewide safety rest area system plan should be maintained. This plan should include development priorities to ensure safety rest areas will be constructed first at locations most needed by the motorist. Proposals for safety rest areas or similar facilities on Federal-aid highways in suburban or urban areas shall be special case and must be fully justified before being authorized by the FHWA Regional Administrator.

(f) Facilities within newly constructed safety rest areas should meet the forecast needs of the design year. Expansion and modernization of older existing rest areas that do not provide adequate service should be considered.

(g) No charge to the public may be made for goods and services at safety rest areas except for telephone and articles dispensed by vending machines.

[43 FR 19390, May 5, 1978, as amended at 48 FR 38611, Aug. 25, 1983]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–1997 · leading case: Jacobsen v. Howard, 109 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacobsen v. Howard, 109 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1997). “4 Jacobsen argues in his brief that he is entitled to monetary damages; however, he did not file a cross appeal from the district court's ruling to the contrary 5 23 C.F.R. Section 752.5(b) provides: The State may permit the placement of vending machines in existing or new…”
Harlan Jacobsen v. Richard Howard, 109 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “They argue that the court erred because it first considered whether the newspaper vending machines were compatible with the purpose of the safety rest area, instead of examining the statutes alone to decide if the restrictions contained in the statutes were arguably reasonable.…”
— 23 C.F.R. § 752.5(b) — 2 cases
Jacobsen v. Howard, 109 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1997). “4 Jacobsen argues in his brief that he is entitled to monetary damages; however, he did not file a cross appeal from the district court's ruling to the contrary 5 23 C.F.R. Section 752.5(b) provides: The State may permit the placement of vending machines in existing or new…”
Harlan Jacobsen v. Richard Howard, 109 F.3d 1268 (8th Cir. 1997). “They argue that the court erred because it first considered whether the newspaper vending machines were compatible with the purpose of the safety rest area, instead of examining the statutes alone to decide if the restrictions contained in the statutes were arguably reasonable.…”
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.