[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10735-10736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Outdoor Advertising Council

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of amended agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration agrees with the Nevada 
Department of Transportation (NVDOT) that one of the definitions in the 
Highway Beautification Federal/State Agreement between the United 
States of America and the State of Nevada should be amended by deleting 
``incorporated villages and cities'' and substituting ``urbanized area 
boundaries, as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a).''

DATES: The amended agreement is effective as of March 5, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marsha Bayer, Office of Real 
Estate Services, HRE-20, (202) 366-5853; or Mr. Robert Black, Office of 
Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1359, Federal Highway Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 
(HBA), as amended, codified at 23 U.S.C. 131 requires States to provide 
effective control of outdoor advertising in the areas adjacent to both 
the Interstate System and Federal-aid primary system, as it existed on 
June 1, 1991, and any highway which is not on either of those systems 
but which is on the National Highway System. States must provide 
effective control of outdoor advertising as a condition of receiving 
their full apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds. Effective 
control of outdoor advertising includes prohibiting the erection of new 
advertising signs except for certain categories of signs listed at 23 
U.S.C. 131(c).
    Another category of signs, ``off premise'' signs, may be allowed by 
a State under 23 U.S.C. 131(d) in zoned or unzoned commercial or 
industrial areas. Signs in such areas must conform to the requirements 
of an agreement between the State and the Federal Government which 
establishes size, lighting, and spacing criteria consistent with 
customary use. The agreement between Nevada and the FHWA was executed 
January 21, 1972.
    Modifying such agreements is rarely done, but in April 1980, the 
FHWA adopted a procedure to be followed if a State requested a change 
in the Federal/State agreement. In accordance with this procedure, the 
State of Nevada first submitted its proposed change, along with the 
reasons for the change and the effects of the change, to the FHWA 
Division Office in Nevada. The FHWA Nevada Division, Region 9, and 
Headquarters offices reviewed and commented on the proposal.
    The change in the agreement is aimed primarily at effective control 
of billboards in Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada, where a vast part of 
the urbanized area is outside the incorporated city limits of Las 
Vegas. The amendment requires the effective control of outdoor 
advertising signs as described in section 131(c) in urban areas outside 
of incorporated villages and cities. Las Vegas is reportedly the 
fastest growing urban area in the United States. The State of Nevada 
believes that the change to the term ``urbanized area boundaries'' in 
the agreement could allow between 20 and 24 new billboard sites 
primarily in the Las Vegas urbanized area but would still prohibit the 
erection of signs in incorporated cities, towns, or villages outside of 
urbanized areas as required by section 131(c). The State maintains that 
the amendment would result in minimal aesthetic impact because urban 
areas are generally intensely developed and contain numerous on-premise 
signs.
    The State held public hearings on the proposed change to receive 
comments from the public. No negative comments were received during the 
State's public hearings on this proposed change, and several supportive 
comments were presented. Nevada's formal request to the FHWA also 
provided justification for the proposed revision to the 1972 Federal/
State Agreement. The FHWA concurred with the State that the amendment 
resulted in minimal aesthetic impact because urban areas are generally 
developed and contain numerous on-premise signs; that the amendment 
clarified the distinction between developed areas and town limits; that 
the resulting changes did not compromise highway safety; that the 
amendment eliminated the artificial and arbitrary imposition of 
standards which allow billboards to be erected in areas where they are 
not appropriate, and in other cases prohibit billboards from areas 
where they would be appropriate; and that the amendment maintained 
interchange block-out zones outside the limits of urban boundaries.
    The State submitted the justifications for the change, the record 
of its public hearings, and an assessment of the impact to the FHWA. 
These were summarized and published in a Federal Register notice dated 
November 28, 1997.
    Five respondents sent comments to the FHWA Docket No. FHWA-97-2907. 
One was a national scenic preservation organization and four were 
various state scenic preservation organizations. No comments were 
received from Nevada citizens or organizations. All five commenters 
criticized the proposed amendment as not advancing the goals of the HBA 
or any other public policy. The five commenters believe that the 
amendment would set a national precedent. The national organization 
maintained that the amendment would undermine Las Vegas' ongoing 
efforts to control billboard blight and flew in the face of local 
public opinion to control billboards in Las Vegas. Another organization 
commented that any further potential loopholes could open the door for 
more billboard blight. A

[[Page 10736]]

third organization commented that the amendment would increase the 
number of distractions to drivers at intersections while a fourth 
organization asserted that the amendment would add severe insult to 
injury. The last organization responded that the amendment would 
further encourage efforts being made by outdoor advertisers to weaken 
pending billboard control legislation.
    The comments on the proposed amended agreement were evaluated by 
the FHWA. Outdoor advertising per se is not prohibited by the HBA. 
Section 131(d), which mandates agreements between the FHWA and the 
States, holds that effective control of outdoor advertising is thus not 
a total ban of advertising. Rather, it is the relegation of outdoor 
advertising signs to their proper areas. The urbanized area of Las 
Vegas would seem to be such an area.
    It must be emphasized that nothing in the HBA or the Agreement 
prohibits Nevada or Las Vegas from imposing stricter controls on 
advertising. The HBA and the Agreement set the minimum amount of 
control a state must impose, not the maximum. Further, the amendment 
does not necessarily detract from Las Vegas' efforts to control outdoor 
advertising signs. The amendment would prohibit the erection of signs 
in incorporated cities, towns, or villages which are outside urbanized 
area boundaries. In incorporated villages and cities (such as Las 
Vegas) within urbanized areas, the erection of signs is already 
controlled by the existing Federal/State Agreement. The amendment to 
the agreement would exchange the restrictions on size, lighting, and 
spacing (while establishing block-out zones) within urbanized areas 
outside of incorporated villages and cities, for such restrictions 
within incorporated villages and cities outside of urbanized areas.
    Any precedent set by the amendment to this agreement would be 
limited and nonbinding. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is unique, so 
the FHWA does not believe that any other Federal/State agreement would 
require amendment for the same reasons.
    The FHWA believes that traffic safety within the Las Vegas 
urbanized area is not compromised by the amended language. Certainly, 
the State of Nevada, which is legally responsible for the safety of its 
highways, would not have proposed the amendment if it would lead to an 
increase in accidents. The amendment would extend block-out zones to 
the boundaries of unincorporated urbanized areas.
    The comment that the amendment to the agreement would degrade the 
appearance of the area is inconsistent with the State's claim that the 
amendment would result in minimal aesthetic impact because urban areas 
are generally developed and contain numerous on-premise signs. 
Especially in the Las Vegas urbanized area, which is far beyond the 
municipal boundary, the potential addition of 20 to 24 sign sites among 
the numerous on-premise signs is insignificant. Further, the amendment 
would have no effect on areas within the boundaries of incorporated 
villages and cities, such as Las Vegas.
    Nevada and the FHWA have completed the above procedure up to the 
point of publishing the FHWA's decision in the Federal Register. The 
State has submitted an amended agreement, signed by its duly empowered 
officials, to the FHWA for execution. Since the FHWA has decided the 
agreement should be amended as proposed, it is now publishing its 
decision in this Federal Register, and has executed on this date the 
amended agreement provided by the State.

Amendment to the Federal/State Agreement

    The Federal/State Agreement ``For Carrying Out the National Policy 
Relative to Control of Outdoor Advertising in Areas Adjacent to the 
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and the Federal-Aid 
Primary System'' made and entered on January 21, 1972, between the 
United States of America represented by the Secretary of Transportation 
acting by and through the Federal Highway Administrator and the State 
of Nevada has been amended to read at Section III: STATE CONTROL, 
Paragraph 2. b. Spacing of Signs as follows:
    ``Outside of urbanized area boundaries, as defined by 23 U.S.C. 
101(a), no structure may be located adjacent to or within 500 feet of 
an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area. Said 500 
feet to be measured along the Interstate or freeway from the beginning 
or ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the 
main-traveled way.''

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48., 23 U.S.C. 131.

    Issued on February 25, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-5448 Filed 3-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P