[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
