Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63411

participating in all discussions

sponsored by the Intelligent

Transportation Society of America (ITS

America) that have been taking place

between DSRC users and manufacturers.

The FHWA understands that significant

progress has been made toward

agreement on a broad DSRC standard in

the ASTM Draft No. 7 DSRC standard,

prepared with industry and user

participation. It is clear that the DSRC

industry and users have been striving to

make progress on the national DSRC

standards—many work on their own

time and at their own expense. The

USDOT is sincerely appreciative for this

cooperative effort, and will continue to

encourage the DSRC industry to do its

part. The need for national

interoperability for CVO applications is

becoming more critical. Also, the total

national investment in noninteroperable ETTM equipment

continues to grow rapidly. The USDOT

would prefer that the DSRC industry

and users set the necessary DSRC

standards through a consensus building

process among the DSRC vendor and

user communities, which the USDOT is

sponsoring through ITS America. It is

imperative that the DSRC standards be

ready for ballot by the end of 1997. If

the ballottable standard is not available

by that time, for publication by June

1998, of the endorsed DSRC standards,

a meeting will be held under the ITS

America auspices between the USDOT,

the DSRC users, and the manufacturers

to determine the extent of the delay. If

a significant impasse to progress

remains at the conclusion of that

meeting, the USDOT will initiate a

rulemaking action to establish the

necessary standards to allow

interoperability between DSRC

applications.

(Sec. 6053(b), Pub. L. 102–240, 105 Stat.

1914; 23 U.S.C. 307 note; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: November 19, 1997.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31243 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–97–2907]

Outdoor Advertising Control

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Nevada Department of

Transportation (NVDOT) proposes to

amend the Highway Beautification

Federal/State Agreement dated January

21, 1972, between the United States of

America represented by the Secretary of

Transportation and the State of Nevada.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to FHWA Docket FHWA–97–

2907, the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT

Docket Room PL–401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

All comments received will be available

for examination at the above address

between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring notification of

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope/postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert A. Johnson, Chief, Program

Services Division, Office of Real Estate

Services, HRE–20, (202) 366–2020; or

Mr. Robert Black, Office of Chief

Counsel, HCC–31, (202) 366–1359,

Federal Highway Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

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), 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.

States must provide effective control 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

§ 131(c).

One of these sign categories, ‘‘off

premise’’ signs, may be allowed by a

State 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.

The 1972 agreement states that the

State of Nevada may permit signs to be

erected no closer than 500 feet from an

intersection outside ‘‘incorporated

villages and cities.’’ The amendment to

the agreement, the exact language of

which is set forth below, would use the

term ‘‘urbanized area boundaries’’ as

defined by 23 U.S.C. § 101(a) in place of

‘‘incorporated villages and cities.’’

In April 1980 the FHWA adopted a

procedure to be followed if a State

requested a change in the Federal/State

agreement. A State must first submit its

proposed change, along with the reasons

for the change and the effects of such

change, to the FHWA Division Office.

The Division, Region, and headquarters

offices all review and comment on the

proposal. If the concept is approved, the

State must then hold public hearings on

the proposed change to receive

comments from the public. If the State

then wishes to amend the agreement, it

must submit: (1) the justification for the

change; (2) the record of the hearings;

and (3) an assessment of the impact.

These are summarized and published in

the Federal Register for comments.

Comments on the proposed amended

agreement will then be evaluated by the

FHWA. The FHWA will then decide if

the agreement should be amended as

proposed and will publish its decision

in the Federal Register. An amended

agreement will then be sent to the State

for signature.

Nevada has completed the above

procedure up to the point of publishing

in the Federal Register. No negative

comments were received in response to

the State’s public hearings on this

proposed change, and several

supportive comments were received.

Nevada’s formal request provides

justification for the proposed revision to

the 1972 Federal/State Agreement. The

primary issue is that the term

‘‘urbanized area boundaries’’ would be

more consistent with the Code of

Federal Regulations (23 CFR 750,

Subpart G) which speaks primarily of

urban areas, rather than incorporated

cities, towns, or villages. 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 metropolitan area is

outside the incorporated city limits of

Las Vegas. The State of Nevada believes

that this change in the agreement could

allow between 20 and 24 new billboard

sites primarily in the Las Vegas area.

The State maintains that this would

result in minimal aesthetic impact

because the urban areas are generally

developed and contain numerous onpremise signs.

The Proposed Change

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
63412 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

Administrator and the State of Nevada

now reads at Section III: STATE

CONTROL, Paragraph 2. b. Spacing of

Signs, as follows: ‘‘Outside of

incorporated villages and cities, 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 maintraveled way.’’

The amended agreement would read

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.

Issued on: November 19, 1997.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31244 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3137; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1974

Alfa Romeo GTV Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1974 Alfa

Romeo GTV passenger cars are eligible

for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that a 1974 Alfa Romeo

GTV that was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards is eligible for importation into

the United States because (1) it is

substantially similar to a vehicle that

was originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and that was certified by its

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards, and (2) it is capable of

being readily altered to conform to the

standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is December 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. [Docket hours are from 10 a.m.

to 5 p.m.]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards shall be refused admission

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer 90–009) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1974 Alfa Romeo GTV passenger cars

are eligible for importation into the

United States. The vehicle which

Champagne believes is substantially

similar is the 1974 Alfa Romeo GTV that

was manufactured for importation into,

and sale in, the United States and

certified by its manufacturer as

conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared the non-U.S. certified 1974

Alfa Romeo GTV to its U.S. certified

counterpart, and found the two vehicles

to be substantially similar with respect

to compliance with most Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified

1974 Alfa Romeo GTV, as originally

manufactured, conforms to many

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

in the same manner as its U.S. certified

counterpart, or is capable of being

readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

the non-U.S. certified 1974 Alfa Romeo

GTV is identical to its U.S. certified

counterpart with respect to compliance

with Standards Nos. 102 Transmission

Shift Lever Sequence * * *., 103

Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104

Windshield Wiping and Washing

Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems,

106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic

Tires, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116

Brake Fluid, 124 Accelerator Control

Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in

Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints,

203 Impact Protection for the Driver

From the Steering Control System, 204

Steering Control Rearward

Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials,

206 Door Locks and Door Retention

Components, 207 Seating Systems, 209

Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt

Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield

Retention, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,

219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302

Flammability of Interior Materials.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicle is capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: (a) substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a

noncomplying symbol on the brake

failure indicator lamp; (b) installation of

a seat belt warning lamp that displays

the appropriate symbol; (c) recalibration

of the speedometer/odometer from

kilometers to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies; (b) installation of U.S.-

model front and rear sidemarker/

reflector assemblies; (c) installation of

U.S.-model taillamp assemblies.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

replacement of the passenger side

rearview mirror with a U.S.-model

component.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

installation of a warning buzzer

microswitch in the steering lock

assembly and a warning buzzer.