A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 19-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to requirements for selling aerosol dusters containing difluoroethane; to amend and reenact subsection 2 of section 19-03.1-22.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the classification of difluoroethane as a volatile chemical; and to provide a penalty.
SB2195 would regulate retail sales of aerosol dusters containing 1,1-difluoroethane, a chemical commonly found in electronics-cleaning products. The bill amends North Dakota’s volatile-chemical law to expressly include difluoroethane in the list of regulated substances and creates a new section in chapter 19-21 setting out sales restrictions for these products.
Under the bill, retailers could sell aerosol dusters containing difluoroethane only from behind the counter, only to purchasers verified to be at least 21 years old with proof of age, and only in quantities of no more than four cans per transaction. It also directs the state department to adopt labeling requirements for products containing 1,1-difluoroethane to protect public health and safety, and it provides for a penalty for violations.
The bill would have expanded state regulation of inhalant-abuse-related products by adding difluoroethane to the statutory definition of a volatile chemical and by creating specific retail-sale controls for aerosol dusters containing that substance. It would have affected retailers, consumers, and the state agency responsible for adopting labeling rules, while also creating enforceable compliance obligations tied to age verification, point-of-sale placement, and transaction limits.
The available record shows limited public debate, but the bill’s structure suggests a public-safety and youth-protection rationale rather than a controversial policy expansion. Because the bill failed, it did not advance to enactment; no committee transcript or recorded vote history is available here to show broader support or opposition. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to measure beyond the bill’s apparent intent to curb misuse of inhalants.
The main policy choices likely to draw attention were the age threshold, the behind-the-counter requirement, and the cap on the number of cans sold per transaction. The bill text also shows proposed amendments changing the minimum age from 18 to 21 and the purchase limit from three to four cans, indicating that lawmakers were considering how strict the retail restrictions should be. Another possible point of contention was whether difluoroethane should be treated like other volatile chemicals under existing inhalant-abuse laws and whether labeling mandates should be set by statute or left to agency rulemaking.