To Amend The Law Related To Fertilizer.
HB1744 revises Arkansas law governing fertilizer registration, inspection, tonnage reporting, penalties, and the handling of related fees. The bill updates terminology throughout the fertilizer subchapter by replacing references to the State Plant Board with the Department of Agriculture in several places, while preserving the department’s authority over registration, sampling, analysis, and enforcement. It also clarifies procedures for registering fertilizer brands and special agricultural crop-use fertilizers, and it keeps the prohibition on selling unregistered fertilizer products in place.
The bill also restructures how fertilizer tonnage fees are collected and distributed. Instead of requiring the fee to accompany the report, the Department of Agriculture is directed to invoice the responsible party for $2.40 per ton or fractional ton, with the same amount still due for monthly reports under one ton. The bill preserves the existing split of fee revenue between the Plant Board Fund and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture’s Soil Testing and Research Fund, and it continues to direct penalties for late or incomplete reporting into the university soil testing fund for soil fertility research and related laboratory support. It also maintains the penalty structure for late reports, including escalating percentage penalties and possible cancellation of registrations.
In practical terms, HB1744 affects fertilizer manufacturers, jobbers, manipulators, distributors, and other sellers in Arkansas, along with the Department of Agriculture, the State Plant Board, and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. It does not create a new regulatory program so much as modernize and align existing fertilizer statutes, especially by shifting administrative references from the State Plant Board to the Department of Agriculture and by changing the billing method for tonnage fees.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s passage was strongly favorable. It passed the House 93-1 and the Senate 34-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant controversy.
The main point of potential contention is administrative and fiscal rather than policy-based: the bill changes who is named in the statute as the responsible agency and how tonnage fees are collected and invoiced. Any concern would likely come from regulated fertilizer businesses about reporting and payment procedures, or from stakeholders focused on how fee revenue is allocated between state agriculture programs and university research, but the voting record suggests those issues were not politically divisive.
HB1744 amends Arkansas Code Title 2, Chapter 19, governing fertilizer registration, inspection, sampling, tonnage reporting, and penalties. It updates statutory references from the State Plant Board to the Department of Agriculture, authorizes the department to invoice tonnage fees, and preserves the existing fee distribution to the Plant Board Fund and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Soil Testing and Research Fund. It also continues the legal requirements for registration of fertilizer products and the enforcement mechanisms for unregistered sales and late or incomplete tonnage reports.
The bill appears to have been viewed positively and as largely noncontroversial. It passed both chambers by overwhelming margins, with only one no vote in the House and none in the Senate. The lack of committee transcript material suggests there was no notable public dispute recorded in the available materials.
The only likely areas of contention are technical and administrative: the shift from the State Plant Board to the Department of Agriculture in the statutory text, the move from fee submission with the report to invoicing by the department, and the continued dedication of a portion of tonnage-fee revenue to the University of Arkansas for soil testing and research. These issues would primarily matter to fertilizer manufacturers, distributors, and agricultural stakeholders, but the recorded votes indicate little to no organized opposition.