AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 4.1-19-03 and 4.1-19-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the management of eggs and poultry in the state; and to repeal section 4.1-19-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to licensing requirements for buyers, sellers, and producers of eggs and poultry.
HB 1084 updates North Dakota’s egg and poultry law by revising the Agriculture Commissioner’s duties and enforcement authority. The bill keeps the commissioner’s role in promoting poultry breeding practices, cooperating on disease control, participating in the National Poultry Improvement Plan, and overseeing federal-state grading services for poultry and poultry products sold at retail. It also clarifies the commissioner’s rulemaking authority to carry out the chapter’s purposes.
The bill also revises the penalty section for violations of the egg and poultry chapter and related rules. It maintains class A misdemeanor penalties for violations and for knowingly making false statements in required documents, and it preserves the ability to assess civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, either through the courts or an administrative hearing process. In addition, it authorizes the Agriculture Commissioner to bring civil actions in the name of the state and repeals a separate section dealing with licensing requirements for buyers, sellers, and producers of eggs and poultry.
HB 1084 primarily affects Chapter 4.1-19 of the North Dakota Century Code by modernizing and consolidating provisions governing poultry oversight, grading, and enforcement. It removes a standalone licensing section, while leaving in place the state’s regulatory framework for poultry management, disease control, retail grading, and penalties for noncompliance. The bill affects poultry producers, buyers, sellers, retailers, and any other persons or business entities subject to the chapter.
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received strong bipartisan support. It passed the House 89-1 and the Senate 47-0, suggesting general agreement with the Agriculture Committee and the Agriculture Commissioner’s request to streamline and update the poultry statutes. The lack of recorded committee debate or amendments in the provided materials also suggests limited opposition or public controversy.
No major points of contention are evident in the available record. The only possible area of policy significance is the enforcement structure: the bill preserves misdemeanor penalties and civil penalties, including administrative adjudication by the Agriculture Commissioner, which could raise concerns in other contexts about regulatory burden or enforcement discretion. However, the overwhelming vote totals indicate that any such concerns were minimal or not publicly emphasized during consideration.