Background
In 1958, Congress passed the first outdoor advertising control legislation commonly known as the "Bonus Act", PL 85-381. However, since it was repealed and replaced by the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, it is now found in the United States Code at 23 U.S.C. 131 (j). Its provisions still exist by reason of agreements with the states. The Bonus Act provided an incentive to states to control outdoor advertising within of the Interstate highway system. States which volunteered for the program would receive a bonus of one-half of one percent of the Federal highway construction costs on segments of Interstate highways controlling outdoor advertising.Bonus Act amendments
Two amendments were adopted which allowed outdoor advertising along portions of Interstate highways. The first amendment was known as the "Cotton Amendment", which exempted any areas adjacent to part of a right-of-way, to July 1, 1956. This allowed billboards in areas adjacent to interchanges, overpasses, and along roads that ran parallel to the interstate The second, known as the "Kerr Amendment", allowed outdoor advertising in commercial and industrial zones. Incorporated municipal boundaries were frozen as of September 21, 1959 (the date of the amendment). Another feature of the Kerr Amendment was that outside city limits, signs were permitted only in commercial or industrial zones as of September 21, 1959. (In effect, the zones were frozen. Inside city boundaries, zoning was not frozen for purposes of outdoor advertising control.)Bonus Act sign compensation
The Bonus Act provided that states could either remove existing signs under the police power or under the power of eminent domain by paying just compensation. If the state chose to pay compensation the Federal government provided 90 percent as the federal match for Interstates.States enacting Bonus Act provisions
The following 25 states enacted laws to implement the "Bonus" program: California, Maine, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Nebraska, Vermont, Delaware, New Hampshire, Virginia, Georgia, New Jersey, Washington, Hawaii, New York, West Virginia, Illinois, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Kentucky, and Oregon. Two states, Georgia and North Dakota, dropped the bonus program; Georgia by court decision and North Dakota by legislation.Signs allowed under the Bonus Act
Under the Bonus Act, four classes of signs were permitted without regard to zoning. * Class One Signs included directional or other official signs or notices required or authorized by law. * Class Two Signs included signs advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which they are located. On premises signs were not permitted by the Bonus Act itself. This was apparently a drafting or typographical error. The national standards later included them in Class Two Signs. * Class Three Signs included those erected or maintained pursuant to authorization or permitted under state law and not inconsistent with the national policy and standards of the law, and advertising activities conducted at a location within of the point at which such signs were located. * Class Four Signs included signs erected or maintained pursuant to authorization in state law and not inconsistent with the national policy and standards, and designed to give information in the specific interest of the traveling public. Bonus Act standards are set out at Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 750, Subpart A.The Highway Beautification Act of 1965
The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 had its genesis in PresidentOutdoor Advertising Control Bill - S.2084
The outdoor advertising control bill was introduced by SenatorExemptions
* Direction and other official signs, no standards. * On-premises and sale-or-lease signs under national standards. * Signs in commercial and industrial zones and areas, but no standards. * Compensation - Not required. If a state proved they couldn't use police power, federal funds were available. The bill was assigned to the Senate Public Works Committee which quickly reported it back to the floor for a vote. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 63 to 14 on September 16, 1965. In the House of Representatives, the bill was assigned to the House Public Works Committee and reported back to the floor on September 22, 1965. However, due to pressure on members from special interest groups, the bill languished on the floor while its sponsors tried to garner support. At the urging of President Lyndon Johnson, the bill was passed by a vote of 245 to 138 at 1:00 am on October 8. The House version was subsequently passed by the Senate on October 13.Major amendments prior to passage, and the author
In its finalized form, the Highway Beautification Act placed restrictions on the size, spacing, and lighting of roadside billboards, allowed the masking of junkyards or garbage dumps to preserve roadside beauty, and the authorization of use of the Highway Trust Fund for landscaping and recreation services within the right-of-way. The Highway Beautification Act was signed into law by President Johnson October 22, 1965.Highway Beautification Act Implementation History and Amendments
Agency hearings – 1966
The Bureau of Public Roads, (Congressional hearings – 1967
The hue and cry was resounding in opposition to the proposed standards. On March 3, 1967, Chairman1968 amendments
TheNonconforming signs issue
The magnitude of illegal and nonconforming sign removals under the HBA of 1965 was first identified in the 1966 nationwide inventory conducted by the Bureau of Public Roads. From the list of the 1.1 million outdoor advertising signs on state inventories, nearly 840,000 were found to be illegal or nonconforming and 260,000 were located in commercial and industrial areas (conforming signs). Under the original HBA, there were two categories of nonconforming signs, nonconforming "compensable" and nonconforming "grandfathered." A nonconforming "compensable" sign was lawfully erected but did not comply with the provisions of state law or regulations passed at a later date. These signs violated zoning or land use provisions and generally were located in rural areas (i.e. agricultural and residential land uses). The removal of such signs require just (cash) compensation. A nonconforming "grandfathered" sign was a sign located in an otherwise legal location (i.e. commercial and industrial area), that was nonconforming due to size, space or lighting restrictions. Such signs could remain, and did not have to be removed. A grandfathered sign was allowed at its particular location for the duration of its normal life subject to customary maintenance. If removed by a state or locality, the sign required just compensation.Federal/state sign agreements
On April 1, 1967, theFHWA's restudy, 1969–1970
In January 1969, Former GovernorThe Volpe rejuvenation, 1969–1970
When he took office in January 1969, Secretary of Transportation1970 funding amendments
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 did not approve any substantive amendments to the HBA but created the Highway Beautification Commission and, for the first time, authorized substantial funding for the program: * Fiscal year 1971 $27.0 million * Fiscal year 1972 $20.5 million * Fiscal year 1973 $50.0 millionThe Highway Beautification Commission, 1971–1973
The commission was created by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605) and began operating late in 1971. There were 11 members; four from the Senate, four from the House of Representatives, and three public members appointed by the President. Members were: * Rep.1974 amendments
The Administration's proposal to incorporate the 1973 Commission's recommendations was submitted to Congress as the Highway Beautification Act of 1974, S. 3161. The bill was later incorporated into the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-643), signed on January 4, 1975. The 1974 Act extended outdoor advertising controls beyond outside of urban areas. This extension of control was limited to those signs visible from the main traveled way of the controlled highway and erected with the purpose of their message being read from such main traveled way. The Act also eliminated the "hiatus period" by requiring compensation for any sign lawfully erected under state law. Also, so-called "landmark signs" (artistic or historic significance), or signs painted on barns were allowed, containing messages such as " Chew Mail Pouch Tobacco." The Act authorized $50 million for fiscal year 1975.The 1976 amendments
The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1976 (P.L. 94 - 280) contained a number of minor amendments: * Subsection 131 (o) was added, permitting retention of certain nonconforming directional-message signs in specific areas where sign removal would create a substantial economic hardship. FHWA was required to approve the retention. * Logo signs (specific service signs) were permitted on federal-aid primary highway rights-of-way, limited to four categories of gas, food, lodging and camping. The original HBA of 1965 allowed logos on interstates only. * Federal financing was provided for signs moved to beyond and made nonconforming by the 1974 Act. The act authorized $25 million per year for fiscal years 1977 and 1978.The 1978 amendments
The 1978 Amendments were the culmination of several years of sign ordinance battles and legal opinions between the FHWA, the outdoor advertising industry and states over the issue of removing signs without payment of just compensation. The history of the amendments can be traced to February 26, 1974, when the Mayor of Madison, WI, approved an ordinance prohibiting outdoor advertising in the city and amortizing all existing signs over a term of years and not paying just compensation for the signs upon removal. 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. On December 21, 1974, FHWA Regional Counsel Roger Brady issued an opinion to the effect that the state was not required to pay for signs rendered nonconforming under state or local law. Thus Wisconsin would not be penalized if Madison removed signs along HBA-controlled highways without compensation. The outdoor advertising industry expressed to FHWA its dismay with the Brady opinion on various occasions. On May 12, 1975, a lengthy legal opinion prepared by OAAA's counsel, Pierson, Ball & Dowd, was delivered to FHWA, pointing out the fallacy of the Brady opinion. On July 15, 1975, FHWA Chief Counsel, David E. Wells, withdrew the Brady opinion as "inappropriately issued." He stated that the matter was best left to state courts to resolve, since it involved the relationship of municipal law to state law. On December 8, 1976, FHWA issued an opinion which said that "a state is only subject to the penalties in 23 U.S.C. 131 when compensation is not paid for the removal of lawful signs under laws passed to comply with the Act." This opinion meant that signs removed under local zoning ordinances could be removed without compensation. The year 1977 saw many attempts to rectify the inequity of the December 8, 1976, FHWA position. Finally, the issue resulted in a meeting on September 13, 1977, with US Transportation SecretaryFederal Highway Administration hearings
On November 27, 1978, Deputy Federal Highway Administrator John S. Hassell announced that FHWA intended to reassess the Highway Beautification Program. 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. Hearings were held during subsequent weeks in Baltimore, Kansas City, San Francisco, Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and New York City. The final hearing took place in Washington, D.C., on July 10 and 11, 1979. Testimony may be summarized as follows: * At the 11 hearings, 435 people testified. * The general public did not respond to the hearings. * Approximately 90 percent of those testifying favored continuation of the Highway Beautification Act and were supportive of outdoor advertising in general. * FHWA maintained a docket for the reassessment program. There were over 1,100 submissions to the docket. Thirty-one of these were by State Highway Departments or, in two cases, the Governor, on behalf of the highway department. FHWA reviewed these submissions to determine the consensus of the states in three areas: the Stafford bill (S.344), just compensation, and vegetation clearance.The Stafford Bill (3.344 )
State views
Seventeen states supported the Stafford bill or its concept of eliminating mandatory just compensation and having an optional Federal program. Six opposed the Stafford Bill. Eight had no position or no comment.Just compensation - state views
Five states indicated the 1978 compensation amendments offered them no problem. Four had no comment. The remaining 22 states had critical comments ranging from indicating that the 1978 amendments could cause problems to outright opposition. Two states questioned the constitutionality of the 1978 amendments.Vegetation clearance – state views
Fourteen states favored allowing some clearing, minor trimming or purchase of blocked signs, or approved of present Federal Highway Administration policy leaving the decision up to the states. Eight opposed the idea of clearing vegetation in front of signs and the existing Federal Highway Administration policy. Nine states had no comment or no position, or stated they had no problem.The Stafford Bill, 344 – 1979
S.344 was introduced by Sen. Robert T. Stafford of Vermont of February 6, 1979. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. After introduction, Sens. Howard Baker of Tennessee and Pete Dominici of New Mexico joined as co-sponsors. Briefly, the bill would have had the following effect: * Control of outdoor advertising would be optional. * Payment of just compensation would be optional. * No mandatory 10 percent penalty. * Would provide for further application of the right-of way logo signs along the primary system. * Continuation of bonus payments by FHWA. Hearings were held by the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation on July 17 and 18, 1979. Witnesses in favor of S.344 included a number of environmental and garden club representatives. 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.The Stafford Bill, S.1641-1980
Sen. Stafford did not end his efforts with this setback. On June 2, 1980, he offered an amendment to S. 1641, a hydroelectric power bill, which in essence copied S. 344. It failed.National Advisory Committee on Outdoor Advertising and Motorist Information, 1979–1981
During the same time frame that Sen. Stafford was introducing outdoor advertising control legislation, the= Committee debate and recommendations
= Early in the deliberations it became apparent that the membership of the full committee was generally divided into two strongly committed but divergent groups. One industry-oriented group favored retention of the present Highway Beautification Act based on its results; supported mandatory compensation for sign removal; and agreed that roadside and tourist oriented businesses were entitled to relief from unfairly severe sign restrictions. 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. In order to organize the options into coherent packages, the Committee formed two subcommittees: Administrative and Legislative, and directed the subcommittees to develop reports and recommendations to the full Committee. The Administrative Subcommittee was composed of industry and tourist-oriented members; the Legislative Subcommittee was composed primarily of environmental-oriented members. 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. The balanced nature of the Committee was reflected in the closeness of the votes between utilizing administrative procedures to change to the program or proposing changes to the law. The voting revealed the split opinions of the group and provided sometimes contradictory results. In many instances the votes did not give any clear direction for the future of the program. The final report of the National Advisory Committee, at best, can be described as confusing; at worst, conflicting. For example, on the first day of its final meeting, the committee, by a vote of 11 to 8, recommended that further sign removals be made optional with the individual states and later rejected a similar recommendation that would have made the payment of just compensation also optional. The following day, the Committee recommended, by a vote of 12 to 10, deregulation of municipalities over 25,000 and urban cities. This would have allowed the use of amortization in these jurisdictions. A short while later, by a vote 12 to t 1, the committee rejected a recommendation which would permit amortization and levy a Federal user tax on nonconforming signs. The National Advisory Committee Report was submitted to the FHWA in late 1981 at the same time as a new Administration. FHWA took no official action to follow up on the report and it died.The Stafford Bill, S.1548–1981
On July 30, 1981, Stafford introduced S. 1548, the Billboard Deregulation Act of 1981, which would have repealed the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. In August 1981, he announced that this bill would be offered as an amendment to S. 1024, the highway bill. However, mark up of the highway bill took place on September 30, 1981, without the Stafford amendment being offered.Deregulation amendment, H.R. 6211-1982
In order to counter any possible reintroduction of Sen. Stafford's deregulation bill, S.1548, OAAA drafted a deregulation bill, which was inserted into the proposed House highway bill, HR 6211. HR 6211 proposed that: * Signs would be limited to commercial and industrial areas or to unzoned commercial and industrial areas as the state deemed appropriate. The existing exempt categories found in current subsection 131(c) were retained. The states would no longer spell out details of control in zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas, as required by the Federal/State agreement. * Signs could not be erected in areas where funds had been expended to cause their removal. * The compensation provisions of the current law would protect sign owners from the impairment of the customary use of signs by allowing maintenance of signs. States would be required to pay compensation to cover these situations. * The states were encouraged to provide for scenic areas where signs were not permitted. * The Governor of each state would certify the state's program to the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary's oversight would be limited to assuring that the state made a proper certification and controlled signs in accord with the certification. The penalty provision of the current law was retained to permit the Secretary to enforce the law. The section made no changes to the 1958 bonus program, the specific information signing (logo) program, or the information center program. The amendment encountered considerable opposition from environmentalists and in the press. Although it passed the House, it was opposed strenuously in the Senate, primarily by Sen. Stafford, and it was withdrawn during the House - Senate conference in December 1982.Funding amendments, 1983 and 1984
In 1983 and 1984 there were attempts to provide a new funding source for the program, from the Highway Trust Fund instead of the General Fund. All such attempts failed.The Gorton Bill, S. 1494 - 1985
On July 25, 1985, Sen.Administration Bill, 1986
The Administration's proposed highway bill was submitted to the Congress on February 5, 1986. It contained extensive amendments to the Highway Beautification Act. These included: * The Act would apply to rural areas only. * Signs in commercial and industrial areas would be allowed only in areas actually used for commercial and industrial purposes. Size, lighting and spacing standards were not required. * Tourist-oriented directional signs (TODS) would be allowed under state standards on highway rights of way. If a TODS applicant for a permit also owned nonconforming signs, one billboard was to be removed without compensation before receiving a permit for one TODS. * Nonconforming signs on the Interstate system were to be removed in five years. * The DOT Secretary could withhold highway approvals for failure to comply. * The payment of just compensation was optional by the state. Federal funds would come from the state's highway apportionment. * Bonus payments would be discontinued. Bonus states would be required to continue controls or pay back bonus payments already received. The Administration Bill was never accorded serious consideration in Congress but did precipitate extensive action on the outdoor advertising issue in 1986.The Stafford Bill, S.2405–1986
The Senate highway bill, S.2405, was introduced by Sen. Symms and five cosponsors on May 6, 1986. At the time of its introduction, it contained no highway beautification amendments. On July 22, 1986, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works met to mark up the highway bill. At that time, Sen. Stafford, joined by Sens. Bentsen (TX) and Moynihan (NY), offered amendments to the Highway Beautification Act which included: * Elimination of the mandatory requirement for the payment of just compensation. State and local governments could use their police power to remove lawfully erected signs. * Prohibition of new signs to be erected after July 1, 1986, or the effective date of the state's compliance law. * Prohibition of all vegetation control on the right of way for the purpose of sign visibility * Requirement of an updated inventory of existing signs. * Requirement for the prompt removal of illegal signs and those billboards which had been paid for. * Prohibition of sign maintenance which would improve the visibility or useful life. * Prohibition of the use of materials from a purchased sign in building a new sign. * Requirement of warning labels, if required on other ads. * Making the penalty discretionary, up to 5 percent of the state's highway funding apportionment. During mark up, there was considerable discussion on the need for signs in rural areas for directional purposes. It was apparent that a consensus would not be reached, and the committee recessed. 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. After virtually no discussion, a vote was taken, and the Stafford amendment was approved, nine to four. Those voting against the amendment were Sens. Symms (ID), Abdnor (SD), Burdick (ND), and Simpson (WY).The Shaw Bill, HR 3129 – 1986
On August 6, 1986, during the floor debate on the House highway bill, HR3129, Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL) offered an amendment to the Highway Beautification Act. Rep. Shaw had offered a similar amendment earlier, which had been rejected by the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The Shaw amendment, which was very similar to the Administration bill, provided: The Act would apply to rural areas only. * Signs in commercial and industrial areas would be allowed only in areas actually used primarily for commercial and industrial purposes with DOT definition for "actual use." Size, lighting and spacing standards were not required. * Tourist-oriented directional signs (TODS) would be allowed under state standards on highway rights of way. The Secretary would define TODS and approve areas for placement. If an applicant for a TODS permit also owns nonconforming signs, one such sign was to be removed with compensation before receiving a permit for a TODS. * Vegetation control would be prohibited. * Nonconforming signs would be removed by the end of 1991. * Illegal signs would be removed within 90 days. * The DOT Secretary could withhold approvals for failure to comply. * Just compensation would be optional for states. Federal funds were made available from a state's highway funds apportionment. * Bonus payments would be discontinued. Bonus states would be required to continue controls or payback bonus payments already received. On August 7, 1986, Rep.Shuster substitute, HR 3129 – 1986
The approved Shuster substitute provided for: * A change in the compliance penalty to a sliding scale of five to 10 percent. The DOT'S authority to suspend a penalty was removed. * Requirement of an annual state inventory or permit system to identify unlawful signs. * Requirement that "illegal signs" be removed within 90 days. * Prohibition of vegetation control, except under standards set by Secretary; a sign became unlawful if an owner was proven to illegally cut for a sign's visibility. Prohibition on sign modification to improve visibility or useful life; routine maintenance permitted. * Except for new replacement signs, no new signs could be erected in commercial and industrial areas after January 1, 1987. The number of signs in commercial and industrial areas in the state was frozen as of January 1, 1987. Subject to state law, existing lawful signs could be moved to new locations in commercial and industrial areas. For this purpose, unzoned commercial or industrial areas would only be recognized if established prior to 1/1/87. Just compensation was not required for signs erected after 1/1/87 and before a state complied with Federal Law. * The Secretary would be precluded from requiring a state to remove lawfully erected nonconforming signs, but the states would not be precluded from such action. * Mandatory compensation would be retained with funding from the state's construction or 4R funds. The federal share was 75 percent or less, as agreed. * Prohibition on the use of sign materials acquired by a state from being reused for new signs. * Clarification of control on public lands but exempted certain lands held in trust for Indian nations. * Elimination of the provision that Federal funds must be available before signs could be required to be removed. Following passage, the highway bill and Shuster Substitute went to a House-Senate conference. Although the Conferees met a number of times, they could not agree on a final highway bill by the time Congress adjourned. The highway beautification amendments were not part of the controversy preventing agreement by the Conferees.1987 amendments, HR 2 & Stafford, S.185/387-1987
= H.R. 2
= Failure by the 99th Congress to pass a highway bill put tremendous pressure on the 100th Congress to do so because of the need for funding the nation's highways. The House responded by passing of HR 2 on January 21, 1987, which was virtually identical to the 1986 bill, HR 3129. There were no committee hearings, and little or no debate. The Highway Beautification Act amendments were the same as those in HR3129; only the dates were changed.= Stafford, S.185/387-1987
= The Senate Highway Bill, S.185, contained no Highway Beautification amendments when introduced. Mark up of S.185 in the Senate Committee took place on January 21, 1987, at which time Sen. Stafford offered an amendment to the Highway Beautification Act. The amendment was virtually identical to that contained in the 1986 Senate bill. After approximately one hour of debate, the amendment was voted on, with an eight-to-eight result. The tie prevented reporting the amendment to the Senate floor. On February 3, 1987, during floor debate of the Senate bill, now S.387, Sen. Stafford offered another amendment, co-sponsored by Sens. Bentsen (TX), Chafee (RI), Evans (WA), Moynihan (NY) and Wilson (CA). The amendment was similar to the 1986 Senate bill, with several major changes. These were: * Moratorium on new signs in rural areas * New boards up to would be allowed only in urban areas. * A ban on new boards within of National Parks, etc. * Compensation required for removals required under Highway Beautification Act provisions; not required for other removals by localities. After one hour of debate, Sen. Wendell Ford (KY) moved to table the amendment, and the Senate agreed, 57 to 40. This resulted in no Highway Beautification Act amendments in the Senate bill. The House - Senate Conferees met on March 10, 1987, and decided not to amend the Highway Beautification Act, and all such amendments passed by the House of Representatives were dropped from the highway bill.Lewis/Shaw amendments, HR 3389 – 1989
On October 24, 1989, Reps. John Lewis (D-GA) and Clay Shaw (R-FL) introduced the most sweeping anti-billboard legislation ever proposed. The proposal, HR3389, the Billboard Control Act of 1989, would: * Place a moratorium on the construction of new billboards beginning in 1995. * Allow states and localities to remove signs without paying "cash" compensation. * Prohibit the cutting or trimming of vegetation and trees to improve the visibility of billboards. * Require annual sign inventories by the states and a report by the US Department of Transportation. * Provide for the removal of all nonconforming billboards in existence after September 1, 1995. No votes were taken on the proposal.Chafee amendment, S.2500–1990
The outdoor advertising program sustained continued scrutiny during the 2nd session of the 101st Congress. Sen. Chafee (R-RI), along with seven co-sponsors, introduced the "Visual Pollution Control Act of 1990," S.2500. The proposal included provisions to: * Eliminate the mandatory 10 percent penalty and replace it with a discretionary penalty. * Require an annual inventory by the states. * Mandate the removal of illegal and nonconforming signs with 90 days of enactment. * Prohibit vegetation control in front of billboards by states. * Ban modifications of nonconforming signs. * Ban new signs after Oct. 1, 1990. * Make payment for sign removal discretionary by the states. * Provide funding from the Highway Trust Fund for sign removal. In November, 1990, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-4 in favor of the Chafee amendment. However, Congress adjourned before any other action was taken.Administration amendments – 1991
On February 13, 1991, Secretary of Transportation Samuel Skinner submitted to Congress the Administration's highway and transportation bill. Within Title 1 of the proposed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1991, section 116, Outdoor Advertising, and Section 109, General Provisions, amended outdoor advertising control provisions. Significant changes included: * Elimination of the just compensation provision of the Highway Beautification Act. States could be reimbursed for sign acquisition costs on controlled, rural highways only. Cash compensation would come from the Highway Trust Fund. * Requirement for a sign inventory in rural areas of effective control. New highways for billboard controls to be added. * Ban on new signs (i.e. a permanent freeze) on rural, controlled highways. No exception made for signs in commercial and industrial areas. Nonconforming signs were not required to be removed in rural areas. No sign control within urbanized areas. * The mandatory 10 percent penalty was changed to a discretionary penalty on a project basis. * Nonconforming signs could not be changed to improve visibility or prolong useful life. Modification of nonconforming signs must adhere to new Federal requirements. * Illegal or acquired signs must be removed within 90 days.House and Senate amendments – 1991
The Visual Pollution Control Act of 1991 was identical to the 1990 Senate proposal, S. 2500. On March 7, 1991, Reps. Clay Shaw (R-FL) and John Lewis (D - GA) reintroduced HR 1344 to conform to the Senate version. A companion bill (S.593 subsequently changed to S.965) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Chafee (R - RI). The bills had 28 co-sponsors in the House and 10 Senate co-sponsors when introduced, along with 40 organizations supporting the anti-billboard amendments. The Shaw/Lewis and Chafee proposal would: * Place a moratorium on new billboard construction along Federal-Aid Primary and Interstate highways. * Prohibit any vegetation control in front of billboards. * Eliminate mandatory just compensation for a lawfully erected sign when removed by a state or locality. At the Senate Committee mark up of the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (S.965) on May 22, 1991, the billboard amendment by Sen. Chafee was approved by a vote of 11-4. On June 3, 1991, Chairman Burdick (D-ND), reported the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 out of committee. The bill number was changed to S.1204 and Section 137, Visual Pollution Control, was the amended Chafee proposal.Reid amendment to S.1204
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. The vote was over the merits of just compensation for billboards. The Senate's favorable vote by a margin of 60 - 39 supported Sen. Reid and the outdoor advertising industry. The Senate passed its entire bill (S. 1204) on June 19. However, the House version of the Surface Transportation Act was pulled from a vote on August 1, after becoming entangled over a 5 cent per gallon gasoline increase.Andrews amendment, HR 2950
Rep. Andrews (D-TX) drafted an amendment to HR 2950 which would have required: * An "actual use" requirement to allow billboards in all zoned commercial and industrial areas as well as eliminating the unzoned area designations. * No new sign within of a National Park or historic property * No tree or vegetation removal in front of billboards. * Removing the mandatory penalty and substituting a discretionary penalty of up to 10 percent The amendment was never brought before the House Public Works Committee, nor the entire House. Instead, the House brought a bill to the Conference Committee without any change to outdoor advertising controls.Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
The Conference Committee debated the highway and transportation issues and reached an agreement on November 27, 1991, on major changes to the transportation program in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The billboard issue was debated by the House-Senate conferees and punitive billboard measures were kept out of the bill. HBA amendments agreed to were: * Funding: If a state elects to do so, it may use its Highway Trust Funds as compensation for the removal of nonconforming signs. The Federal share is 80 percent. These funds will come from the same money source that funds highway maintenance and bridge repairs or from a new category of funding called Surface Transportation Funds. Billboard control is an eligible item under the Transportation Enhancements program. * Illegal Signs: Owners of an illegal sign (unlawfully erected) must remove the sign 90 days after enactment of the bill or the State shall remove it and assess all costs to the owner. * Control Routes: The Highway Beautification Act compliance applies to all signs on highways designated as the "Federal-aid primary" system as of June 1, 1991, and on any highway which is designated as part of the new National Highway System (NHS). Therefore, HBA controls will apply to the current or Interstate and Federal-aid primary highways and additional miles or newly designated NHS highways. * State Compliance: Amendments made by the Amendment shall not affect the status or the validity of any existing state compliance law or regulation. States will not have to automatically submit their HBA laws for federal revisions. * Scenic Byways: Prohibits the erection of new billboards on state designated scenic byways which are part of the interstate or primary system. Control of signs on such highways shall be in accordance with HBA control provisions.Scenic Byways Advisory Committee
A 17-member Advisory Committee was established to assist the Secretary of Transportation in the establishment of a National Scenic Byways Program and All American Roads program. The Advisory Committee was required to submit a report to the Secretary no later than 18 months after ISTEA's enactment. The outdoor advertising industry was made a member of the Scenic Byways Advisory Committee. Other scenic byways and alternative sign issues included: * An Interim Scenic Byways Program was also established and FHWA given authority to make grants to the states. Ten percent of these grants (up to $1 million in 1992, 1993, and 1994) were for sign removal under HBA controls. The Federal share for payment was to be 80 percent. * Tourist Oriented Directional Signs: Directed the Secretary of Transportation to encourage the states to provide for equitable participation in the use of TODS and logos and included a one-year study.Nonconforming sign amendment in the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992
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. In January 1992, FHWA issued guidance to its field offices and the states concerning the new billboard control requirements. On February 20, 1992, the FHWA notified all state Governors that since ISTEA of 1991 made removal of nonconforming signs eligible for federal-aid highway funds, the states must use highway trust funds to remove all remaining nonconforming signs. On March 6, 1992, the FHWA published a Federal Register Notice calling for the required removal of nonconforming signs within two years or risk losing 10 percent of their federal highway money. The estimated cost to remove 92,000 was $428 million. Each state was to provide an action plan to implement removals by June 18, 1992. In addition, illegal sign removal action and the billboard ban on scenic byways was included for comments. Letters from key congressional leadership, Governors and other state officials, and billboard users protested this unilateral action by FHWA. On May 8, 1992, the FHWA issued in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) asking for comment on four sign removal options, but recommended proposed regulations that states remove all nonconforming signs by March 1994. The comment period was to expire on July 8, 1992. On May 20, 1992, Sen. Steve Symms (R-ID) offered amendment No. 1849 to an emergency urban aid package. The Symms proposal was approved by voice vote in the Senate that same evening. The technical amendment to section 131(n) of the HBA provided that Federal funds for the removal of legal, nonconforming signs was at the states' discretion. The amendment was uncontested. During the debate on the amendment, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARBTA) provided a detailed analysis of the economic impact on jobs if billboards had to be removed and the resulting number of highway miles that would not be rehabilitated due to funds being used to remove billboards. Also, the travel and tourism industry voiced concern about the loss of advertising opportunities for their members, many dependent upon billboards. Rep, Bud Shuster (R-PA) offered a floor colloquy on June 18, which spelled out the House-Senate conferees intent. On June 22, 1992, the President signed the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992 (PL 102-302). The outdoor advertising amendment unequivocally negated the FHWA rulemaking notice of May 8, 1992, which made mandatory the removal of nonconforming signs. FHWA then advised their field offices that there was no risk of penalty if a state chose not to acquire nonconforming signs. On July 16, 1992, the FHWA published in the Federal Register a deletion of all references to nonconforming sign removals. The illegal sign removal matter and the billboard ban on scenic byways rulemaking were not affected. Throughout the entire rulemaking process, over 3,200 letters were submitted to the FHWA Docket. Nearly 90 percent were in support of the outdoor advertising industry position.Scenic Byways National Advisory Committee of 1993 and 1995 Scenic Byways amendment
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. The FHWA prohibition included new billboards on any state-designated scenic byways. The FHWA prohibition included new billboards within commercial and industrial areas along scenic byway routes. The billboard ban issue became a contentious issue during the 1993 National Scenic Byways Commission deliberations, primarily due to efforts by anti-billboard factions to insert the FHWA's rulemaking policy language into the Commission's Final Report that a mandatory ban on new billboards was required. Votes on the billboard ban issue reflected the divided nature of the Commission membership between government officials, business and tourism interests, and conservationists/preservationists. The Committee's charge was to recommend to the Secretary of Transportation those minimum criteria by which state and federal agencies would designate and operate certain outstanding scenic byways as National Scenic Byways and All American Roads. The Commission's report focused on the identification and development of scenic byways that offer scenic, historic, natural, cultural, recreational, or archaeological values yet are a part of a voluntary, "Bottoms-up" grassroots effort, not a federal mandate. The Committee's Final Report, issued in 1993, provided a program structure, designation process and criteria, funding recommendations, de-designation procedures, signing options, design standards, safety, and outdoor advertising control recommendations. The outdoor advertising issue was the most difficult and contentious for the Committee to resolve. There was extensive debate over the interpretation of the existing laws as well as recommendations for a future national program. Formal votes were taken on several issues (with very close results) because consensus could not be reached. 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. The Committee then agreed that its vote should not be construed as meaning it favored new billboards. 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 did recommend that the Secretary of Transportation encourage the states to extend billboard controls to limit new billboard construction on the national designated routes, regardless of road system. This latter point was added by FHWA staff because of disagreement over the interpretation of ISTEA language. 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. ISTEA and HBA controls would apply to a scenic byway designated in accordance with the nomination process as a national scenic byway or All-American Road on the Interstate or federal-aid primary highway even it was not designated pursuant to state law as a state scenic byway. On June 14, 1993, FHWA reversed it earlier policy by issuing a "segmentation" policy that recognized state discretion to permit new billboards within commercial and industrial segments of state scenic byways. However, the FHWA policy was implemented in a sporadic and vague manner, resulting in broad confusion among the states concerning the scope of FHWA's authority in this area. In late 1993, an amendment to clarify the scenic byways "segmentation" issue was included in the House Committee version of the HAZMAT bill. However, all amendments considered non-germane to the bill were dropped prior to the Floor vote.= 1995 amendment to Scenic Byways Controls
= In 1995, the National Highway System Designation was under consideration by both the House and Senate. This legislation was required by ISTEA. The House of Representatives approved an amendment to subsection (s) of the HBA to clarify that the federal ban on new billboards on scenic byways did not restrict the authority of a state with respect to commercial and industrial areas along a scenic byway or roads designated pursuant to the original ISTEA language on the national scenic byways program. 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. The Conference Substitute language stated: In designating a scenic byway for purposes of section 131(s) and section 1047 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, a state may exclude from such designation any segment of a highway that is inconsistent with the state's criteria for designating scenic byways. The exclusion of a highway segment must have a reasonable basis. The secretary of Transportation has the authority to prevent actions that evade Federal Requirements. In effect, the final language codifies current FHWA policy to allow segmentation of non-scenic areas along a state designated or federally approved scenic byway so long as the state's determination is reasonable. Trail blazer signs and mapping of excluded segments is not prohibited. Managerial language to accompany the Conference Substitute was printed in the Congressional Record, pages H 13324-25 on November 18, 1995, by Rep. Bud Shuster. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-59) was enacted into law on November 28, 1995.Senator Jeffords amendment to S. 1173 (ISTEA Reauthorization of 1997)
On October 23, 1997, Sen. Jeffords filed seven amendments to S. 1173 the reauthorization of the highway and transportation program. The amendments did not come to a vote on the Senate Floor due to other pressing business. The amendments were:= Amendment 1403
= Placed a cap on the total number of billboards= Amendment 1405
= Prohibited state vegetation control programs= Amendment 1406
= Allowed a locality to remove legal signs with just compensation for signs erected after enactment= Amendment 1407
= Required each state to conduct an annual inventory that catalogs every illegal, nonconforming and conforming signs along federal-aid controlled highways and scenic byways.= Amendment 1408
= * Prohibited new billboards in unzoned commercial and industrial areas * Allowed a locality to remove signs on federal-aid highways without payment of just compensation * Placed a cap on the total number of signs * Required an annual inventory * Prohibited state vegetation control programs= Amendment 1404
= Prohibited new billboards in unzoned commercial and industrial areas= Amendment 1409
= * Allowed a locality to remove signs on federal-aid highways without just compensation * Required an annual inventory * Prohibited state vegetation control programs= TEA 21-1998
= No amendments to the outdoor advertisement control program were offered during debate on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st (TEA 21), a six-year reauthorization of the highway, safety and transit program. Billboard control remains an eligible item under the Transportation Enhancements Program as established under ISTEA of 1991 and continued by TEA 21 in 1998. The federal share is 80 percent.Recent activity
On August 10, 2005, PresidentCriticisms
Bypassed and decommissioned highways
The 1965 Highway Beautification Act coincided with an era in which keyCommercial/industrial regulations
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.See also
*References
External links