Opinion No. (2009)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports·Decided April 23, 2009·Published

Opinion

Dear Representative McAffrey:

This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:

1. The Oklahoma Highway Advertising Control Act does not allow billboards visible from the interstate highways to be erected within one thousand (1,000) feet of other such billboards. Does this prohibition apply only to billboards on the same side of the highway?

2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Highway Advertising Control Act, is a billboard that is within six hundred and sixty (660) feet of an interstate, within an urban area, and visible from (though not intended to be read from) the interstate, subject to regulation by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation ("ODOT")?

A.
BACKGROUND

1. HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ACT

In 1965, Congress passed the Federal Highway Beautification Act ("Federal Act"), which required mandatory compliance from all states and allowed the federal government to cut a state's federal highway funding by 10% if it failed to comply with its provisions. 23 U.S.C. § 131(b) (West, Westlaw through Mar. 2009). The Federal Act requires that the states provide "effective control" of outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices in areas adjacent to the Interstate System and the primary system, 1 which are within a specified distance of the nearest edge of the right-of-way and visible from the main traveled way of the system. The Federal Act further provides: *Page 2

In order to promote the reasonable, orderly and effective display of outdoor advertising while remaining consistent with the purposes of this section, signs, displays, and devices whose size, lighting and spacing, consistent with customary use is to be determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary, may be erected and maintained within six hundred and sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way within areas adjacent to the Interstate and primary systems which are zoned industrial or commercial under authority of State law, or in unzoned commercial or industrial areas as may be determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary.

Id. § 131(d).

2. OKLAHOMA'S RESPONSE: THE HIGHWAY ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT

Specific control of highway advertising became the law and policy in Oklahoma in 1968, when the Legislature, in response to these federal mandates, enacted the Highway Advertising Control Act of 1968, ("Oklahoma Act"), codified at 69 O.S. 2001 Supp. 2008, §§ 1271 — 1288.2 The stated *Page 3 purposes of the Oklahoma Act are the promotion of "public safety, health, welfare, convenience and enjoyment of public travel" and the "preserv[ation] and enhance[ment of] the scenic beauty of lands bordering public highways." 69 O.S. 2001, § 1271[69-1271]. The Legislature determined that it was "in the public interest to control the size, number, spacing, lighting, type and location" of outdoor advertising devices in "control areas."3 Id.

The Oklahoma Act expressly authorizes the Oklahoma Department of Transportation ("ODOT") to promulgate and enforce necessary rules and regulations to control outdoor advertising in order to qualify Oklahoma for federal-aid highway funds, and to ensure compliance with the purpose and intent of the Federal Act and regulations.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation shall have the authority to implement and enforce this act, and may prohibit outdoor advertising devices in the control areas, and may regulate and permit certain outdoor advertising structures and devices in the control areas, within the limitations of this act and according to the standards and definitions set forth in this act.

*Page 4

69 O.S. 2001, § 1271[69-1271].

B. QUESTIONS
1. WHILE THE HIGHWAY ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT DOES NOT ALLOW BILLBOARDSVISIBLE FROM THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS TO BE ERECTED WITHIN ONE THOUSAND(1,000) FEET OF ANOTHER SUCH BILLBOARD, DOES THIS PROHIBITION APPLY ONLYTO BILLBOARDS LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY?

Your question requires an interpretation and construction of the 1000-foot spacing requirement found in Section 1275 of the Oklahoma Act. This section of the Oklahoma Act provides the standards (specifications, requirements and limitations) pertaining to size, spacing, lighting, etc. for signs that may be erected in a "business area."4 For purposes of this question, we are concerned with the second sentence of Section 1275(c)(3), which requires that signs visible from interstate andfreeway primary facilities have 1000 feet of space between them. You ask whether this 1000-foot limitation applies only to signs on the same side of the highway.

"The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute." In re City of Durant v. Cicio, 50 P.3d 218, 221 (Okla. 2002). The first two sentences of Section 1275(c)(3) provide spacing limitations for two different categories of roadways. The first sentence, which applies to signs visible from a nonfreeway primaryhighway, clearly differentiates between signs on the same and on opposite sides of the roadway for spacing purposes. *Page 5

Signs visible from a nonfreeway primary highway shall not be erected within the limits of an incorporated municipality less than one hundred (100) feet on the opposite side of the highway and three hundred (300) feet on the same side of the highway, and outside the limits of an incorporated municipality less than three hundred (300) feet, from another such sign, other than signs described in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 1274 of this title. . . .

69 O.S. 2001, § 1275[69-1275](c)(3) (emphasis added).

In contrast, the second sentence, which applies to interstate andfreeway primary facilities, contains no such qualifying language to restrict the prohibition to one side of the highway.

Signs visible from interstate and freeway primaryfacilities shall not be erected less than one thousand(1,000) feet from another such sign, other than signs described in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 1274 of this title.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion No. (2009), (Okla. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion No. (2009) (Opinion No. (2009)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Milam
393 P.2d 823 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1964)
Neer v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1999 OK 41 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
Humphrey v. Denney
1988 OK 69 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1988)
Matter of Protest of 1990-1991 Budget
848 P.2d 30 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1992)
City of Durant v. Cicio
2002 OK 52 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)
Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc.
2001 OK 2 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2001)
Bishop v. Takata Corp.
2000 OK 71 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)