North Dakota Senate Bill SB2253

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25
• Report Pass: 2/6/25
• Engrossed: 2/10/25
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Report Pass: 3/18/25
• Enrolled: 3/31/25
• Passed: 4/3/25

Caption

AN ACT to create and enact a new subdivision to subsection 2 of section 39-06.1-06 and a new section to chapter 39-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the use of an engine compression brake device and cities and counties posting a zone prohibiting the use of an engine compression brake device; to amend and reenact section 39-06.1-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of a moving violation; and to provide a penalty.

Summary

SB 2253 creates a new state-law restriction on the use of engine compression brake devices by operators of commercial motor vehicles in areas that a city or county has designated and posted as prohibiting such use. The bill allows local governments to adopt ordinances establishing these no-compression-brake zones and to post the restriction in the designated area. It also provides an exception for emergency situations. The bill further amends North Dakota’s traffic-violation provisions to classify a violation of the new compression-brake restriction as a moving violation and sets a $50 fee for the offense. In practical terms, this means drivers cited under the new rule would face the same general treatment as other moving violations for purposes of state traffic enforcement and related penalties.

Impact

SB 2253 adds a new chapter 39-21 restriction and a corresponding penalty provision in chapter 39-06.1, giving cities and counties authority to regulate engine compression brake use in posted zones. It expands the statutory definition of a moving violation to include violations of the new local-posted compression-brake prohibition, which affects commercial truck operators, local law enforcement, and municipal/county governments that choose to adopt and post such ordinances.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received majority support but not unanimous backing, passing the Senate and House on second reading with notable opposition in both chambers. The vote margins suggest the measure was generally acceptable to many lawmakers, likely reflecting a compromise between noise-control concerns and commercial trucking interests. No committee transcripts were provided, so the available record shows support through passage but also meaningful dissent.

Contention

The main point of contention is the balance between reducing noise disturbances in communities and preserving flexibility for commercial motor vehicle operators. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a local control and quality-of-life measure for neighborhoods affected by loud engine braking, while opponents likely objected to adding another traffic restriction and penalty on truck drivers or to allowing local patchwork regulation. The emergency exception may have been included to address concerns about safety and operational necessity.