Interstate Oasis Program, 61529-61534 [E6-17367]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61529-61534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-17367]



[[Page 61529]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-23550]


Interstate Oasis Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this approved final Interstate Oasis 
Program policy document. Section 1310 of the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005) requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to develop standards for designating 
certain facilities as Interstate Oases and to design a uniform logo for 
such designated facilities. After consideration of public comments on a 
draft program and policy document, the FHWA has finalized the policies 
for the Interstate Oasis program.

DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, (202) 366-5915, Office 
of Transportation Operations, HOTO, or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1359. The FHWA office hours are from 
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The offices are located at 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access

    An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded Bulletin Board 
Service from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at https://
www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web site at 
https://www.access.gpo.gov. An electronic version of the Interstate 
Oasis program document may be downloaded at the FHWA Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.

Outline

     Background on the Interstate Oasis Program.
     Actions Taken to Date.
     Comments and Responses on the Draft Interstate Oasis 
Program.
    [cir] General Comments.
    [cir] Eligibility Criteria.
    [cir] Signing.
    [cir] Education and Marketing.

Background on the Interstate Oasis Program

    Prior to the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA was in the process 
of investigating a number of issues relating to rest areas on the 
Interstate System, in response to a provision in the Joint Explanatory 
Statement of the Committee of Conference (House Report 106-355) that 
accompanied the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-69, 113 Stat. 986). Of particular 
concern is the limited availability in some areas of sufficient 
opportunities for road users to stop and rest that created safety 
concerns related to increased driver fatigue. Insufficient truck 
parking has also been found to be a significant problem in some States 
at rest areas on the Interstate system, on local road systems near 
interchanges with Interstate highways, and at adjoining businesses. 
Commercialization of existing Interstate highway public rest areas to 
allow private firms to provide services such as those found in 
``service plazas'' on many toll roads and turnpikes, in exchange for 
private responsibility for maintenance and operation of the rest areas, 
has been advocated by some States and by the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to reduce the 
financial burden of maintaining public rest areas. However, such 
commercialization is not authorized by current laws and regulations and 
is strongly opposed by business interests located off the Interstate 
system.
    In August 2005, SAFETEA-LU was enacted. Section 1310 of SAFETEA-LU, 
entitled ``Interstate Oasis Program,'' requires the FHWA to establish 
an Interstate Oasis program and, after providing an opportunity for 
public comment, develop standards for designating as an Interstate 
Oasis a facility that, at a minimum, offers products and services to 
the public, 24-hour access to restrooms, and parking for automobiles 
and heavy trucks. Section 1310 also requires the FHWA to design a logo 
to be displayed by a designated Interstate Oasis facility. Further, 
Section 1310 requires that, if a State elects to participate in the 
Interstate Oasis program, any facility meeting the standards for 
designation shall be eligible for designation as an Interstate Oasis.
    The Interstate Oasis program is also expected to help further the 
goals of the Secretary of Transportation's new National Strategy to 
Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network, announced on May 
16, 2006.\1\ We anticipate that the Interstate Oasis program will 
increase the availability of truck parking, thereby reducing the 
occurrence of truck parking on the shoulders of Interstate highways 
that could be contributing to congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Speaking before the National Retail Federation's annual 
conference on May 16, 2006, in Washington, DC, former U.S. 
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled a new plan to reduce 
congestion plaguing America's roads, rail, and airports. The 
National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation 
Network includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce 
transportation congestion. The transcript of these remarks is 
available at the following URL: https://www.dot.gov/affairs/
minetasp051606.htm
_____________________________________-

Actions Taken to Date

    On February 27, 2006, the FHWA published a notice in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 9855), providing a draft policy for the Interstate 
Oasis Program, posing nine specific questions to help refine and 
finalize the program, and requesting public comments (FHWA Docket No. 
FHWA-2006-23550). After careful analysis of all comments received, the 
FHWA has decided to finalize and issue the Interstate Oasis Program and 
Policy. A variety of relatively minor changes have been made in the 
program and policy to add clarity and incorporate suggested 
improvements from insightful comments regarding the draft. Also, the 
final Interstate Oasis Program and Policy reflects the legislated 
requirements of Section 1310 of SAFETEA-LU by use of the word ``shall'' 
where appropriate. The FHWA intends that the Interstate Oasis Program 
and Policy in its entirety be considered as the criteria for 
designating and signing a facility as an Interstate Oasis.

Comments and Responses on the Draft Interstate Oasis Program

    The following discussion is a summary of significant comments 
received on the draft program document and the specific questions posed 
in the February 27, 2006, notice and the FHWA's responses on how the 
concerns and/or issues raised were considered and addressed.
    We received comments from 39 entities, including eight national 
associations, 13 State transportation agencies, one State environmental 
agency, one State social services agency, one local government agency, 
three private companies, and 12 private individuals. The national 
associations included the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the 
Motorist Information Services Association (MISA), the National 
Association of County Engineers (NACE), the National Association of 
Truck Stop Operators (NATSO), the National Federation of the

[[Page 61530]]

Blind (NFB), and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association 
(OOIDA).
    Many comments were general in nature and are summarized and 
addressed collectively under the General Comments heading. Many 
comments included recommendations related to one or more of the 
potential eligibility criteria, certain potential signing practices, or 
recommended educational and marketing efforts, in response to the 
language of the draft program policy and/or the specific questions 
posed in the February 27, 2006, notice. These comments are summarized 
and addressed under the Eligibility Criteria, Signing, and Education 
and Marketing headings, as appropriate.
    All comments and recommendations have been read and considered by 
the FHWA. A number of the comments received focused on the trend for 
some States to consider closing some of their public rest areas due to 
economic or other issues and expressed concerns that the designation of 
Interstate Oasis facilities off the Interstate highway rights-of-way 
might encourage further closures of public rest areas. Interstate Oases 
are not intended to replace public rest areas, and these concerns are 
beyond the scope of this effort and have not been addressed in this 
document.

General Comments

    Many commenters expressed overall support for the program. They 
generally recognized and noted the potential benefits of the program, 
such as increased opportunities for stopping and using restroom 
facilities without the obligation to purchase anything, increased 
parking for heavy trucks to enable drivers to rest for up to 10 hours 
to satisfy legal requirements,\2\ and improved safety due to reductions 
in driver fatigue accruing from the increased stopping opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
regulates maximum hours of service by certain motor carriers and 
drivers. The regulations are contained in 49 CFR 395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only four comments received can be characterized as in general 
opposition to this program. The NFB and the Louisiana Department of 
Social Services opposed the program because of the potential impacts to 
blind individuals who operate vending machines at public rest areas 
under the priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 
107 et seq.) This concern, which is related to potential closures of 
public rest areas, is beyond the scope of this effort and has not been 
addressed in this document.
    The Iowa Department of Transportation (IA DOT) opposed the program, 
stating a lack of need for it in view of the existing Specific Services 
Signing program for food, gas, and lodging, and the anticipated 
pressure on the agency to participate in the program if it is 
established. One individual opposed the program on the basis of 
concerns that truck stops are ``scary places'' for females. The FHWA 
believes that the eligibility criteria will result in various types of 
establishments, not just truck stops, being designated as Interstate 
Oases and that the States will assure that designated facilities 
provide a reasonable degree of safety and comfort for all users.
    The AASHTO, AHAS, and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN 
DOT) suggested that the policy should put more emphasis on the safety 
benefits of the program in providing for truck parking and driver rest. 
In response, the FHWA has added a paragraph to the program and policy 
to clarify its purpose.
    The NACE expressed concern about the possible impacts of the 
program on local road agencies such as county governments, in terms of 
heavy truck traffic on local roads to access an Oasis, added workload 
for the local government if it is involved in the review and 
decisionmaking process for designation of a facility as an Oasis, and 
possible costs for trailblazing signs along local roads. The FHWA 
believes that States electing to participate in the Interstate Oasis 
program will work with their local government agencies as appropriate 
to ameliorate any of these potential impacts associated with local 
roads.

Comments on Eligibility Criteria

    Maximum Distance from Interchange: There was not a clear consensus 
among the commenters regarding the proposed normal maximum distance of 
3 miles from an interchange. Ten commenters were in favor of that 
distance while eight stated a preference for 1 mile, three suggested 
\1/2\ mile, two favored some unspecified distance less than 3 miles, 
and one preferred some unspecified distance greater than 3 miles. Most 
commenters supported flexibility for States to extend the maximum 
distance in unusual circumstances, such as in very sparsely developed 
rural areas where the nearest eligible facility is not within 3 miles 
from the exit but road users would nevertheless benefit from the 
opportunity to park, use rest rooms, and rest to reduce fatigue, even 
if they must travel more than 3 miles off the Interstate highway to 
reach the Oasis. Many who supported the flexibility to extend the 
distance beyond 3 miles recommended signs on the ramp indicating the 
mileage to the Oasis and trailblazing signs along the access highway.
    The FHWA believes that 3 miles is a reasonable maximum distance 
under most conditions and retains 3 miles as the normal maximum. The 
FHWA also believes the public will benefit from allowing extensions of 
this distance in some cases and therefore has added a provision to 
allow the States to consider greater distances, in 3-mile increments up 
to 15 miles, in such unusual rural circumstances. This approach is 
similar to that allowed for eligibility in the Specific Service Signing 
program. Distances on ramp signs and trailblazing on the access route 
are discussed under the Signing heading.
    Adequacy of Access Route to Oasis: The draft policy stated that an 
Oasis facility must be safely and conveniently accessible, as 
determined by an engineering study, via highways that are unrestricted 
as to vehicle weight or type, size, or weight. In response to one of 
the questions posed in the February 27, 2006, notice, the majority of 
commenters indicated that more specific criteria should be stated for 
the States to use in their engineering studies to assess the safety and 
convenience of the access route.
    The FHWA agrees and has modified the policy to indicate that the 
engineering study should take into consideration the Transportation 
Research Board's 2003 ``Access Management Manual'' \3\ and the 
applicable criteria of AASHTO's ``Policy on Geometric Design of 
Highways and Streets'' \4\ (Green Book) or, in the case of highways not 
on the National Highway System, the applicable State design standards. 
The FHWA believes that these documents contain the proper guidance and 
discussion of issues to consider for this kind of a study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Access Management Manual,'' 2003, available for purchase 
from the Transportation Research Board at Keck Center of the 
National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, or 
online at https://gulliver.trb.org/bookstore/.
    \4\ ``Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,'' 
fifth edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North 
Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at 
https://bookstore.transportation.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AHAS objected to the draft criterion that the access route be 
unrestricted as to vehicle type, size, or weight, stating that this 
implies that current Federal and State size and weight restrictions can 
be disregarded for travel on access routes to Oases. The

[[Page 61531]]

AHAS further stated that this criterion would undermine or pre-empt 
State authority to preserve certain lower class roads from damage and 
safety concerns posed by certain heavy trucks.
    The FHWA disagrees with that position and believes that the AHAS 
has misinterpreted the intent of the criterion. The policy intends 
that, if a State has enacted special restrictions on a particular 
section of highway or bridge, such as a maximum weight limit or maximum 
length of vehicle, that is more restrictive than what is legal in the 
State for unrestricted roads of that class, a facility that is 
accessible only via that specially restricted section or highway or 
bridge would not be eligible for designation as an Oasis. Some States 
may allow certain very heavy trucks to operate only on the Interstate 
and National Highway systems and not on roads of lesser classification. 
Such trucks would in many cases still be able to access an Oasis under 
rules of ``reasonable access'' to facilities for food, fuel, and rest 
as provided in the Code of Federal Regulations at 23 CFR 658.19, as 
long as a special weight limit, such as for a structurally substandard 
bridge, is not posted on the access route. We have clarified the 
language of the policy, indicating that the facility shall be 
accessible via a route that an engineering study determines can safely 
and conveniently accommodate vehicles of the types, sizes, and weights 
that would be traveling to the facility, and that the study should take 
into account the rules for reasonable access as per 23 CFR 658.19.
    Adequacy of On-Site Circulation and Ingress/Egress: The draft 
policy also stated that an Oasis facility must have physical site 
geometry, as determined by an engineering study, to safely and 
efficiently accommodate all vehicles, including heavy trucks of the 
size and weight anticipated to use the facility. The majority of 
commenters indicated that more specific criteria should be stated for 
the States to use in their engineering studies to assess the safety and 
efficiency of the site geometry, including driveway access points.
    The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) recommended 
that a WB-62 design vehicle \5\ be specified for the site assessment. 
The FHWA agrees with these points and has modified the policy to 
indicate that the engineering study should take into consideration the 
Transportation Research Board's 2003 ``Access Management Manual,'' the 
AASHTO ``Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and 
Freeways,'' \6\ and other pertinent geometric design criteria for 
vehicles at least as large as a WB-62. These documents contain 
appropriate guidance for assessment of existing sites as well as design 
of new sites, and the WB-62 is the most commonly used truck size for 
geometric design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Information about the WB-62 design vehicle and how it is 
used in geometric design of highways and intersections is contained 
in ``Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,'' fifth 
edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American Association 
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol 
Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at https://
bookstore.transportation.org/.
    \6\ ``Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and 
Freeways,'' third edition, 2001, available for purchase from the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or 
online at https://bookstore.transportation.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Number of Parking Spaces: Seven commenters indicated that States 
should be given total flexibility to decide on a case-by-case basis how 
many parking spaces should be required for various vehicle types to 
qualify as an Oasis. However, 15 commenters stated that the 
determination of adequacy should be guided by the national criteria. Of 
those 15, most favored a formula-based approach rather than specific 
minimum numbers of spaces and some cited the AASHTO ``Guide for 
Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways'' as 
containing a well-researched formula for this specific purpose. The 
formula accounts for traffic volumes on the Interstate, percentage of 
trucks, length of stay, and other factors affecting demand.
    The FHWA agrees with this approach and has modified the policy 
accordingly. The OOIDA and two States commented that the parking spaces 
at Oases should be free of charge. Although not specifically stated in 
the draft policy, that was intended and the FHWA has clarified the 
policy to specifically state that the parking spaces should be free of 
charge.
    Required Products and Services: The draft policy stated that, to be 
eligible, a facility should provide a public telephone, food (vending, 
snacks, fast food, and/or full service), and fuel, oil, and water for 
automobiles and trucks. One of the questions in the February 27, 2006, 
notice asked whether there are other products or services that should 
be considered essential for designation as an Oasis. Some commenters 
suggested adding requirements, such as picnic tables, pet walk areas, 
wireless internet, cell phone service, security patrols, electrical 
power hookups for vehicle heating and air conditioning, etc. A few 
commenters suggested that requirements for food, fuel, and water should 
be deleted in the interest of making the Oases more like a public rest 
area and/or making it easier for potential facilities to qualify. Two 
States suggested eliminating the requirement for a public phone because 
of increasing cell phone use. However, the majority of commenters 
stated that the products and services outlined in the draft policy are 
appropriate, no others are essential, and individual operators of 
designated Oases will likely decide on their own to provide additional 
services or products as determined by the market.
    The FHWA has decided to retain the products and services as stated 
in the draft policy, including public phone, and not add any others. 
Although cell phone use is increasing rapidly, it is by no means 
universal and there are many areas where cell phone service is 
unreliable or unavailable. Further, a public phone remains an essential 
service for those who do not have a cell phone.
    Flexibility to Consider Combined Services of More than One 
Business: In response to a question posed in the February 27, 2006, 
notice, commenters were equally divided between allowing and not 
allowing States the flexibility to consider the products and services 
of a combination of two or more businesses at an interchange when all 
the criteria cannot be met by any one business at that interchange. The 
AASHTO, MISA, and eight State DOTs were among those opposed to this 
flexibility, while OOIDA, NATSO, and five State DOTs were among those 
in favor under at least some circumstances. Many of those in favor of 
flexibility recommended that the businesses be located immediately 
adjacent to each other and be easily accessible on foot from each 
other's parking lots without having to cross a public highway, such 
that a vehicle could park once and easily walk to obtain all services.
    The FHWA believes it is in the best interest of the traveling 
public to allow States this flexibility and has modified the policy 
accordingly.
    Additional State Criteria: The draft policy stated that States may 
impose additional minimum eligibility criteria beyond those of the 
national minimums. Several commenters objected to this, stating that 
allowing States to require the provision of additional products or 
services or to impose additional minimum requirements for eligibility 
would unduly limit participation by businesses and compromise 
uniformity in terms of meeting road user expectations. The FHWA agrees 
and has modified the policy to preclude States

[[Page 61532]]

from imposing additional eligibility criteria.

Comments on Signing

    Interstate Oasis Name: In the February 27, 2006, notice, one of the 
questions asked whether the name ``Interstate Oasis'' will be readily 
understood by the public and identified with the types of service 
offered, or whether some other name for the facilities would better 
serve the public. Comments received on this question were nearly evenly 
divided. Eleven commenters, including AASHTO, favored ``Interstate 
Oasis'' while ten commenters, including NATSO and OOIDA, favored some 
other name. Among those favoring something other than ``Interstate 
Oasis,'' there was a wide variety of suggested names but no consensus. 
While some suggested that the Utah or Vermont names of ``Rest Stop'' or 
``Rest Exit'' should be used, others stated that such names would be 
confusing because they are very similar to ``Rest Area'' but the 
facilities are much different from public rest areas. The California 
and Pennsylvania DOTs expressed concern that the word ``Interstate'' in 
the program name would preclude its application to non-Interstate 
freeways.
    The FHWA believes that Interstate Oasis will, after an introductory 
acclimation period, become familiar to and understood by road users. 
The FHWA also believes the program should be limited, at least 
initially, to Interstate highways as directed in the SAFETEA-LU Section 
1310 language. Therefore the FHWA retains the ``Interstate Oasis'' as 
the program name and signing designation.
    Symbol or Logo: In response to the question about what symbol 
(logo) should be used to indicate an Interstate Oasis, 15 commenters, 
including AASHTO and 4 State DOTs, favored the use of some symbol. 
Eight of those 15 commenters suggested a palm tree, while others 
suggested a wide variety of different logos. Four of the 15 commenters 
recommended that the symbol should not be used alone and that it should 
be accompanied by words as an educational measure until the symbol 
becomes widely known. Seven commenters, including the AHAS, MISA, and 
three State DOTs, pointed out that any new symbol for use on official 
traffic signs cannot be adopted by FHWA unless the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) \7\ is revised to include the new 
symbol, and that MUTCD revisions can only be made via the rulemaking 
process outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et 
al.). Some commenters also recommended that human factors evaluations 
be conducted before a new symbol is proposed for addition to the MUTCD, 
in order to assure that a new symbol is optimized for conspicuity and 
legibility at freeway speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The MUTCD, approved by the FHWA, is the national standard 
for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or 
bicycle trail open to public travel. The MUTCD is available for 
viewing and printing online at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA believes that the symbol to represent the Interstate Oasis 
should be some form of one or more palm trees, as eventually determined 
by human factors evaluations of various potential designs. However, the 
FHWA agrees that after such evaluations and refinement, the FHWA would 
propose to include the symbol in the MUTCD for use on guide signs 
through the rulemaking process. Therefore, the FHWA has determined 
that, for initial implementation by States, only the word message 
``Interstate Oasis'' should be used on guide signs to indicate an exit 
with one or more Oasis facilities. The policy has been modified 
accordingly.
    Signing on the Freeway: Several commenters expressed concerns about 
multiple methods of signing to denote the availability of an Oasis at 
an exit and the potential for the lack of a single uniform signing 
method to result in road user confusion or safety impacts. Many 
commenters specifically objected to the proposed signing option to use 
a ``patch'' on Specific Service sign business logos to denote 
designation as an Interstate Oasis. It was noted that the FHWA has 
already provided Interim Approval for use of a 12-inch circular yellow 
``patch'' with the letters ``RV'' on business logos on gas, food, 
lodging, or camping Specific Services signs for businesses that meet 
``RV-friendly'' criteria.\8\ The patch is placed partly on the business 
logo and partly on the blue background of the larger sign panel. 
Concerns were expressed that extension of this concept to Interstate 
Oases and possibly for other purposes in the future would unduly 
clutter the Specific Services signs and compromise sign legibility and 
understanding by road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This Interim Approval may be viewed at https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-mem_rvf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, one of the questions posed in the February 27, 2006, notice 
asked whether States should have the flexibility to include the name or 
logo of a business designated as an Oasis on a separate advance sign 
and, if such sign is provided, should the business be disqualified from 
having their business logos on any Specific Service signs at the 
interchange. Most responses to this question indicated that the States 
should have the flexibility to allow the business name or logo on any 
separate advance sign indicating availability of an Interstate Oasis at 
the exit and that the business should not be disqualified from the 
Specific Services signing program.
    In consideration of the comments received and its own experience in 
signing, the FHWA has revised the final policy to eliminate the patch 
signing concept and simplify the signing elements. The FHWA has decided 
that States should not include the names or logos of the Oasis 
businesses on the separate advance sign, because such elements would 
lead to significant increases in the potential for information 
overload, particularly at interchanges with multiple designated Oases. 
The recommended practice, if adequate sign spacing allows, is for a 
separate blue sign in advance of the exit containing the exit number 
and only the words ``Interstate Oasis.'' If there is inadequate sign 
spacing to enable use of the separate sign, an existing Advance Guide 
sign or an existing D9-18 series General Services sign for the 
interchange may have a supplemental blue panel with the words 
``Interstate Oasis'' appended above or below it. If Specific Services 
signing is provided at the interchange, a business designated as an 
Interstate Oasis that has its logo on a Specific Services sign may 
include the word ``Oasis'' within its logo panel. This use of words 
within a business logo is similar to existing provisions in the MUTCD 
that allow messages within logos such as ``24 Hours,'' ``Diesel,'' 
etc., and was a suggestion of many commenters as being preferable to 
the ``patch'' concept. The single word ``Oasis'' is specified rather 
than the two-word phrase ``Interstate Oasis'' in the interest of 
legibility, to maximize the size of the letters used within the 
business logo.
    Ramp Signing and Trailblazing: The draft program and policy stated 
that signing should be provided near the exit ramp terminal and along 
the cross road to guide road users from the interchange to the 
Interstate Oasis and back to the interchange. As noted previously in 
the discussion of maximum distance from the interchange under the 
Eligibility Criteria heading, there were many comments suggesting that 
road users should be provided with information about the distance they 
must travel from the ramp terminal to the Interstate

[[Page 61533]]

Oasis, particularly in cases where the Oasis is located more than 3 
miles away.
    The MUTCD recommends that Specific Service signs on exit ramps 
should include the distances to the facilities, and the FHWA believes 
that this practice should be extended to exit ramp signs for Oasis 
facilities. Accordingly, the FHWA has included language in the final 
policy to recommend that the distance be included on the ramp signs and 
on any cross road trailblazing signs that are provided. The FHWA has 
also made other minor modifications to the language to stipulate the 
colors and legend size for these signs and clarify that, if the 
Interstate Oasis is clearly visible from the exit ramp and/or if 
Specific Services signs containing logos of Oasis businesses are 
provided on the ramp, ramp signs and trailblazing signs may not be 
needed.
    Private signing: Comments from the NATSO suggested that the policy 
should clearly indicate that the Interstate Oasis logo may be displayed 
by designated businesses on their on-site facility and private signs, 
as well as their advertising media, including billboards. Although only 
the words ``Interstate Oasis'' will be used to designate a facility 
until such time as a symbol (logo) is adopted in the MUTCD, the need to 
limit the use of the official designation to those facilities approved 
by the State and allowing those facilities to use the designation on 
their private signs and advertising media is nevertheless still 
pertinent. The FHWA has added text to the final policy to recommend 
that States participating in the Interstate Oasis program should enact 
appropriate legislation or rules to implement these controls.

Comments on Education and Marketing

    In the February 27, 2006, notice, we invited comments regarding 
educational and marketing efforts that may be necessary to familiarize 
travelers and businesses with the Interstate Oasis program. Nine of the 
11 comments on this question stated the opinion that considerable or 
extensive marketing efforts will be needed. The suggested methods 
included brochures, radio and television public service announcements, 
flyer handouts in rest areas, weigh stations, motor vehicle licensing 
and permitting offices, and including information in State highway maps 
and commercial maps and atlases. Many commenters noted that the 
individual States establishing an Interstate Oasis program in their 
State would be in the best position to provide the educational and 
marketing efforts, as a part of their routine public relations 
programs. Commenters also recommended that the trucking industry and 
travel industry (including such organizations as the American 
Automobile Association) be involved in the educational and marketing 
efforts, in view of their established means of communicating with their 
members. The FHWA agrees with these comments and has added language to 
the program and policy recommending that educational and marketing 
efforts be undertaken by participating States, in cooperation with 
trucking and travel industry partners as appropriate.

Acknowledgement

    The FHWA recognizes and appreciates the effort of all parties who 
provided comments for consideration in the development and finalization 
of the Interstate Oasis program.

(Authority: Sec. 1305, Pub. L. 105-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 23 U.S.C. 
109(d), 315, and 402; 23 CFR 1.32 and 655.603; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).)

    Issued on: October 10, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    The text of the FHWA Interstate Oasis Program and Policy is as 
follows:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Final

Interstate Oasis Program and Policy

Purpose

    The purpose of the Interstate Oasis program is to enhance safety 
and convenience for Interstate highway users by allowing States, in 
accordance with this policy, to designate and provide signing to 
certain facilities off the freeway that will provide increased 
opportunities for stopping to rest, using restroom facilities, and 
obtaining basic services.

Definition of Interstate Oasis

    An Interstate Oasis shall be defined as a facility near an 
Interstate highway but not within the Interstate right-of-way, 
designated by a State after meeting the eligibility criteria of this 
policy, that provides products and services to the public, 24-hour 
access to public restrooms, and parking for automobiles and heavy 
trucks.

Eligibility Criteria

    Interstate Oasis facilities shall comply with laws concerning:
    1. The provisions of public accommodations without regard to race, 
religion, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability; and
    2. The licensing and approval of such service facilities.
    If a State elects to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing, 
there should be a statewide policy, program, procedures, and criteria 
for the designation and signing of a facility as an Interstate Oasis. 
To qualify for designation and signing as an Interstate Oasis, a 
facility:
    1. Shall be located no more than 3 miles from an interchange with 
an Interstate highway, except that:
    a. A lesser distance may be required when a State's laws 
specifically restrict truck travel to lesser distances from the 
Interstate system; and
    b. Greater distances, in 3-mile increments up to a maximum of 15 
miles, may be considered by States for interchanges in very sparsely 
developed rural areas where eligible facilities are not available 
within the 3-mile limit;
    2. Shall be accessible via a route that an engineering study 
determines can safely and conveniently accommodate vehicles of the 
types, sizes, and weights that would be traveling to the facility, 
entering and leaving the facility, returning to the Interstate highway, 
and continuing in the original direction of travel. The engineering 
study should take into consideration the processes and criteria 
contained in the Transportation Research Board's ``Access Management 
Manual'' \1\ (2003 or latest edition) and the applicable criteria of 
the most recent edition of the AASHTO ``Policy on Geometric Design of 
Highways and Streets'' \2\ (Green Book) or, in the case of highways not 
on the National Highway System, the applicable State highway design 
standards. The engineering study should also take into account the 
provisions for reasonable access by heavy vehicles to facilities for 
food, fuel, and rest as per 23 CFR 658.19;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Access Management Manual,'' 2003, available for purchase 
from the Transportation Research Board at Keck Center of the 
National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001, or 
online at https://gulliver.trb.org/bookstore/.
    \2\ ``Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,'' 
fifth edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North 
Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at 
https://bookstore.transportation.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Shall have physical geometry of site layout, including parking 
areas and ingress/egress points, that an engineering study determines 
can safely and efficiently accommodate movements into and out of the 
site, on-site circulation, and parking by all vehicles, including heavy 
trucks of the types, sizes, and weights anticipated to use the 
facility. The engineering study should assume a design vehicle at least

[[Page 61534]]

as large as a WB-62 truck.\3\ The engineering study should also take 
into consideration the applicable criteria of the Transportation 
Research Board's ``Access Management Manual'', the AASHTO ``Guide for 
Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways'' \4\ (2001 
or latest edition), and other pertinent geometric design criteria;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Information about the WB-62 design vehicle and how it is 
used in geometric design of highways and intersections is contained 
in ``Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,'' fifth 
edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American Association 
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol 
Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at https://
bookstore.transportation.org/.
    \4\ ``Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and 
Freeways,'' third edition, 2001, available for purchase from the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or 
online at https://bookstore.transportation.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Shall have restrooms available to the public at all times (24 
hours per day, 365 days per year). Restrooms should be modern and 
sanitary and should have drinking water. The restrooms and drinking 
water should be available at no charge or obligation;
    5. Shall have parking spaces available to the public for 
automobiles and heavy trucks. The parking spaces should be well lit and 
should be available at no charge or obligation for parking durations of 
up to 10 hours or more, in sufficient numbers for the various vehicle 
types, including heavy trucks, to meet anticipated demands based on 
volumes, the percentage of heavy vehicles in the Interstate highway 
traffic, and other pertinent factors as described in formulas contained 
in the AASHTO ``Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials 
and Freeways'' (2001 or latest edition);
    6. Shall provide products and services to the public. These 
products and services should include:
    a. Public telephone;
    b. Food (vending, snacks, fast food, and/or full service); and
    c. Fuel, oil, and water for automobiles, trucks, and other motor 
vehicles; and
    7. Should be staffed by at least one person on duty at all times 
(24 hours per day, 365 days per year).
    In cases where no single business near an interchange meets all the 
eligibility criteria, a State policy may allow the criteria to be 
satisfied by a combination of two or more businesses located 
immediately adjacent to each other and easily accessible on foot from 
each other's parking lots via pedestrian walkways compliant with the 
Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA) and that do not require crossing a 
public highway.
    If a State elects to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing, any 
facility meeting the criteria described above shall be eligible for 
designation as an Interstate Oasis. Statewide criteria shall not impose 
additional criteria beyond those listed above to qualify for 
designation as an Interstate Oasis. However, a business designated as 
an Interstate Oasis may elect to provide additional products, services, 
or amenities.

Signing

    States electing to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing should 
use the following signing practices on the freeway for any given exit 
to identify the availability of an Interstate Oasis:
    1. If adequate sign spacing allows, a separate sign should be 
installed in an effective location with a spacing of at least 800 feet 
from other adjacent guide signs, including any Specific Service signs. 
This sign should be located in advance of the Advance Guide sign or 
between the Advance Guide sign and the Exit Direction sign for the exit 
leading to the Oasis. The sign should have a white legend (minimum 10 
inch letters) and border on a blue background and should contain the 
phrase ``Interstate Oasis'' and the exit number or, for an unnumbered 
interchange, an action message such as ``Next Exit''. Names or logos of 
businesses designated as Interstate Oases should not be included on 
this sign.
    2. If the spacing of other guide signs precludes use of a separate 
sign as described in item 1 above, a supplemental panel with a white 
legend (``Interstate Oasis'' in minimum 10 inch letters) and border on 
a blue background may be appended above or below an existing Advance 
Guide sign or D9-18 series General Service sign for the interchange.
    3. If Specific Service signing (See MUTCD Chapter 2F) is provided 
at the interchange, a business designated as an Interstate Oasis and 
having a business logo on the Food and/or Gas Specific Service signs 
may use a bottom portion of the business's logos to display the word 
``Oasis.''
    4. If Specific Services signs containing the ``Oasis'' legend as a 
part of the business logo(s) are not used on the ramp, a sign with a 
white legend (minimum 6 inch letters) and border on a blue background 
should be provided on the exit ramp to indicate the direction and 
distance to the Interstate Oasis, unless the Interstate Oasis is 
clearly visible and identifiable from the exit ramp. Additional guide 
signs may be used, if determined to be necessary, along the cross road 
to guide road users to an Oasis.
    A State's policy, program, and procedures should provide for the 
enactment of appropriate legislation or rules to limit the use of the 
phrase ``Interstate Oasis'' on a business'' premises, on-site private 
signing, and advertising media to only those businesses approved by the 
State as an Interstate Oasis.

Education and Marketing

    If a State elects to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing, the 
State should undertake educational and marketing efforts, in 
cooperation with trucking and travel industry partners as appropriate, 
to familiarize travelers and businesses with the program before it is 
implemented and during the initial period of implementation.

 [FR Doc. E6-17367 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P