[citation needed] One panelist, Phil Tocker, was of the view that off-premises advertising should be permitted in commercial, industrial, and business areas without regard to their being zoned as such.

[citation needed] A second panelist, Lowell K. Bridwell, then Under Secretary for Transportation, US Department of Commerce, later joined Tocker in voting for outdoor advertising in commercial and industrial areas.

On March 3, 1967, Chairman John C. Kluczynski (Illinois) of the House Subcommittee on Roads wrote to the state Governors assuring them that there would be no penalty for failure to comply by the January 1, 1968, deadline set in the Act.

[citation needed] On March 20, 1967 Chairman Kluczynski and ranking minority member William C. Cramer announced that the Committee would hold hearings which commenced on April 5, 1967.

Perhaps the only concrete result of the two hearings was contained in a letter from Secretary Alan S. Boyd, of Transportation, to Chairman Kluczynski, dated May 25, 1967, which contained this statement: With regard to the determination of what constituted 'customary use' in the zoned commercial and industrial areas, we shall be glad to look to the States for certification that either the State authority or a bona fide local zoning authority has made such a determination.

This amendment put into law the essence of a letter dated May 24, 1967, from Secretary of Transportation Alan Boyd to Chairman John Kluczynski of the House Subcommittee on Roads: With regard to the determination of what constitutes customary use in the zoned commercial and industrial areas, we shall be glad to look to the States for certification that either the State authority or a bona fide local zoning authority has made such a determination."

[citation needed] On July 1, 1970, the Administration's highway bill was introduced in the Senate, calling for the amendments recommended in the FHWA Report and Restudy, which demonstrated substantial finding for outdoor advertising control.

The year 1971 experienced a frenzy of activity; 11 states resisted Volpe's edict to the point of demanding hearings, which were held between August and October.

[citation needed] On September 20, 1974, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation requested an opinion from the FHWA as to whether the state was obligated to pay just compensation for any or all of the signs to be removed under the Madison ordinance.

Although a number of key Congressmen spoke on behalf of the industry position, the following statement of subcommittee chairman Jim Howard sums up the issue most eloquently:[unbalanced opinion?]

The reassessment included holding a series of hearings throughout the country, along with the appointment of a National Commission to review the program and provide recommendations for its future direction.

The formal announcement appeared in the Federal Register on April 30, 1979, and the first hearings were held simultaneously by FHWA staff on June 5, 1979, in Boston, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon.

Testimony may be summarized as follows:[citation needed] FHWA reviewed these submissions to determine the consensus of the states in three areas: the Stafford bill (S.344), just compensation, and vegetation clearance.

Witnesses in opposition included former Federal Highway Administrator Bill Cox, and former US Secretary of Transportation John Volpe, who made a statement in favor of continuing the program and requiring the payment of just compensation.

[citation needed] The environmental-oriented group was critical of the Highway Beautification Act; felt that the Act tried to cover too much territory; wanted to return major responsibility for billboard control to state and local governments with greatly relaxed compensation requirements such as amortization; and strongly supported alternative information systems in place of traditional outdoor advertising signs.

During the final meeting of the full Committee, the members discussed the subcommittee reports, weighed the alternatives available for improving the Highway Beautification Program, and then voted on the recommendations.

Bentsen (TX) and Moynihan (NY), offered amendments to the Highway Beautification Act which included: During mark up, there was considerable discussion on the need for signs in rural areas for directional purposes.

[citation needed] On the following day, July 23, 1986, a new section was added by Sen. Stafford which provided that the Secretary shall not require any further removals of nonconforming signs.

[5] On June 12, 1991, the Senate voted on a floor amendment offered by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to strike section 137 (the Chafee language) in its entirety.

Other scenic byways and alternative sign issues included: The ink had hardly been dry on the December 18, 1991 ISTEA legislation before a DOT/FHWA interpretation of the new statute required an amendment to the Highway Beautification Act.

[citation needed] [5] Similar to the nonconforming sign removal issue, one of the first actions taken by the Federal Highway Administration after enactment of ISTEA (December 18, 1991) was the issuance of a March 1992, advisory that construed the provisions of subsection (s) to prohibit the construction of all new billboards on any state-designated scenic byways.

[citation needed] Votes on the billboard ban issue reflected the divided nature of the Commission membership between government officials, business and tourism interests, and conservationists/preservationists.

[citation needed] A majority of the committee did not support a recommendation that the Secretary of Transportation require a demonstrated commitment not to add new billboards, but accepting those which were in place.

This motion referred to a prohibition of billboard construction on routes other than Interstate and federal-aid primary roads designed as national scenic byways.

A majority of the Committee recommended that corridor management plans for All-American Roads require states to effectively ban new billboards except in communities with over 25,000 population and to encourage the use of alternative business identification signs such as TODS and logos.

The Senate bill contained no comparable provision and, after much debate by the Conference Committee, a substitute was agreed to which codified the FHWA'S June 14, 1993, policy implementation.

[5] On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed SAFE-TEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act): A Legacy for Users at a ceremony in Illinois; it was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009.

Through over 100 personal interviews, seven focus groups and public meetings in the seven cities along with over 1,800 comments to the Federal Register, the Assessors gathered unique perspectives about the outdoor advertising control program.

This placed established independent business (typically on US Highways and small-town mainstreets) at a disadvantage to national chains increasingly entering the market by building new locations at the newly constructed freeway off-ramps.

[7] The HBA allows billboards to be erected in any commercial or industrial area adjacent to interstate and federal-aid primary highways, with strict guidelines as to what constitutes commercial/industrial activity.