AN ACT to create and enact two new subsections to section 43-30-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to application fees for a non-live remote or online classroom instruction course for apprentice security officers and renewal and late fees for all nonlicensed officers and owners of at least a ten percent interest in a private security or detective agency.
HB 1045 amends North Dakota Century Code section 43-30-16 by setting maximum fees for certain private security licensing-related charges. It caps the application fee for a non-live remote or online classroom instruction course for apprentice security officers at $60. It also caps the renewal fee for all nonlicensed officers and owners holding at least a 10% interest in a private security or detective agency at $60, and allows a late fee of up to $20 per month when the renewal fee remains unpaid.
The bill is narrow in scope and does not create a new licensing program or expand regulatory authority; instead, it places statutory limits on fees that may be charged under existing private security and detective agency regulation. Its practical effect is to constrain the Private Investigative and Security Board’s fee-setting discretion for these specific categories of applicants and renewals, while providing a clear late-fee ceiling for delinquent renewals.
HB 1045 directly affects section 43-30-16 of the North Dakota Century Code by adding two new subsections that limit fees associated with private security training and renewal obligations for certain nonlicensed officers and agency owners. The bill impacts the Private Investigative and Security Board, apprentice security officers taking remote or online instruction, and owners with at least a 10% interest in private security or detective agencies by establishing statutory fee caps and a monthly late-fee limit.
The available legislative record shows broad support for HB 1045. It passed the House 91-0 with 3 absent and the Senate 46-1 with no absences, indicating strong bipartisan approval. No committee transcript was provided, and the voting pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a routine regulatory or fee-limiting measure rather than a controversial policy change.
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available materials. The only notable point of potential disagreement is the bill’s restriction on how much the board may charge for online apprentice training, renewals, and late fees, which could be seen as limiting agency revenue or administrative flexibility. However, the near-unanimous votes suggest any such concerns were minimal or resolved without public opposition in the recorded history.