A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 39-13-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to regulation of tourist-oriented directional signs.
HB 1052 would amend North Dakota law governing tourist-oriented directional signs, often called TODS signs. The bill keeps the basic definition of tourist-oriented directional signs and tourist-related businesses, services, and activities, but it revises the rules for where and how those signs may be placed. It directs the Department of Transportation to continue setting standards by rule, while requiring those rules to conform to federal standards and the department’s manual, and it specifically states that logos may not be used on these signs.
The bill also clarifies local authority over sign placement. A local government that has adopted an ordinance allowing tourist-oriented directional signs could authorize them within its highway right of way, but not within the interstate highway system. For highways under the Department of Transportation’s jurisdiction, the bill would require the use of a qualified contractor for erection, installation, and maintenance, and it appears to narrow placement to rural highways outside the interstate system. In practical terms, the bill would tighten and clarify the regulatory framework for tourism signage and limit where such signs can be installed.
HB 1052 would amend section 39-13-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, affecting the state’s rules for tourist-oriented directional signage and the authority of local governments and the Department of Transportation over those signs. It would preserve the existing prohibition on interstate placement, reinforce compliance with DOT rules and federal standards, and add a no-logo requirement. The bill would also affect businesses and attractions that rely on directional signage to attract visitors, especially rural tourism-related businesses, lodging, food services, historical sites, festivals, and recreation providers.
The bill appears to have been introduced by the House Transportation Committee at the request of the Department of Transportation, which suggests administrative support for clarifying or tightening the sign rules. However, the bill ultimately failed, and there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials to show active floor or committee debate. Based on the text alone, the measure seems to have been framed as a technical transportation and signage regulation bill rather than a broadly controversial policy proposal.
The main points of potential contention are the limits the bill places on sign placement and design. Businesses and tourism operators could object to the prohibition on logos, the restriction to rural highways outside the interstate system, and the requirement to use qualified contractors for installation and maintenance, all of which could increase costs or reduce visibility. Local authorities may also be sensitive to the bill’s balance between local discretion and state-level DOT rulemaking. On the other hand, transportation officials and regulators would likely favor the clearer standards and tighter control over right-of-way signage.