WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1052

relative to qualifications for licensure as a LADC, or licensed alcohol and drug counselor.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bill Boyd and 4 co-sponsors

ND aims to update TOD signs by defining eligible rural businesses, prohibiting logos, requiring permits and qualified installers, and restricting placement to non‑interstate highwa

Refer for Interim Study: MA VV 03/05/2026 HJ 6 P. 19
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1052

HB 1052 — Summary (North Dakota: amendment to NDCC § 39‑13‑09 — Tourist‑oriented directional signs)

Status: Introduced Nov 12, 2024; Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 1, nays 92).
Introduced by: Transportation Committee (at the request of the Department of Transportation).
Purpose: To amend and reenact ND Century Code § 39‑13‑09 to clarify definitions and regulatory rules governing tourist‑oriented directional signs and to set placement, design, permitting, and installation requirements.

Main intent

The bill seeks to update statutory definitions and impose specific limits and procedures for tourist‑oriented directional signs (TOD signs), focusing on: (1) which businesses qualify for signs; (2) where signs may be placed (with an emphasis on rural highways, excluding interstate right‑of‑way); (3) conformity with federal and state standards; and (4) prohibiting logos on such signs.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions
    • Clarifies “tourist‑oriented directional sign” and expands the statutory meaning of “tourist‑related business, service, or activity” to explicitly include rural agricultural businesses and tourism attractions (recreation, historical sites, festivals/cultural events, lodging, food services, guide services).
    • Excludes businesses operating under franchise agreements from the definition.
    • Defines the “immediate area” of a business as within city limits or within one mile (1.61 km) if outside city limits.
  • Standards and design
    • Directs the Department of Transportation to adopt rules for erection and maintenance that conform to federal TOD sign standards (23 U.S.C. §131(q)) as of July 1, 1991, and the department’s manual under § 39‑13‑06.
    • Adds a statutory prohibition on the use of logos on tourist‑oriented directional signs.
  • Placement and permitting
    • Allows a local authority (that has adopted an ordinance permitting TOD signs) — upon request — to authorize signs within the right‑of‑way of highways under local jurisdiction, but not within interstate right‑of‑way.
    • Requires permit applicants to engage a “qualified contractor” for erection, installation, and maintenance for signs within DOT jurisdiction.
    • The statutory text indicates signs are limited to rural highways not within interstate right‑of‑way (the bill text contains some overlapping/typographical phrasing in this clause; intent appears to be to restrict such signs to rural, non‑interstate highways).
  • Compliance requirement
    • A tourist‑oriented directional sign may not be erected unless it complies with the department’s rules.

Who would be affected

  • Rural and tourism‑oriented businesses seeking directional signage (positive effect for eligible non‑franchised businesses).
  • Businesses operating under franchise agreements would be excluded from eligibility.
  • Local governments that adopt permitting ordinances and the North Dakota Department of Transportation (rulemaking, enforcement).
  • Contractors that install and maintain signs (requirement to use a qualified contractor).
  • Drivers and highway users (fewer logo‑style signs; signage limited by location).

Procedural/timeline notes

  • Bill was introduced Nov 12, 2024.
  • Referred to Transportation Committee.
  • Advanced to second reading but failed to pass (vote: yeas 1, nays 92), so it did not become law in this form.

Observations

  • The bill emphasizes preservation of interstate aesthetics/safety by excluding interstate right‑of‑way and bans logos on TOD signs, reinforcing standardized directional signage.
  • Section 4 of the drafted amendment contains overlapping/contradictory phrasing (“may notmust be erectedlimited to rural highways…”) that would require technical cleanup to clarify whether TOD signs are limited to rural highways and to remove typographical errors before enrollment.

If you want, I can draft a concise side‑by‑side comparison showing the specific statutory language removed/added and a clean redraft that resolves the typographical ambiguity.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.