AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 28-32 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the enforcement of agency rules.
SB 2258 creates a new section in North Dakota Century Code chapter 28-32 governing how state agencies must explain the legal basis for enforcing administrative rules. When an agency takes an enforcement action based on a rule — including by notice, determination, order, or similar action — the agency must, upon request from the affected person, identify the specific statute or rule that authorizes the action within 10 days.
The bill is aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in administrative enforcement. It does not appear to change the underlying authority of agencies to adopt or enforce rules; rather, it adds a disclosure requirement so regulated parties can quickly learn what legal provision the agency is relying on when taking action against them.
The bill would add a new procedural requirement to agency enforcement under chapter 28-32 of the North Dakota Century Code. Agencies enforcing administrative rules would need to provide the cited statutory or regulatory authority within 10 days of a request from the person subject to enforcement. This affects state agencies and regulated individuals or businesses by creating a clearer right to information during enforcement proceedings, but it does not itself create new substantive enforcement powers or penalties.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received, with strong bipartisan support in both chambers. It passed the Senate 30-17 and the House 90-2, indicating broad agreement on the value of requiring agencies to identify the legal basis for enforcement actions. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the final votes suggest the measure was viewed favorably overall.
The main point of possible contention is the added administrative burden on agencies, which must respond to requests within a short 10-day window and ensure their enforcement actions are tied to specific legal authority. Supporters likely viewed this as a transparency and due-process measure for people subject to agency action, while any opposition appears to have been limited, given the large margins of passage. The bill text and vote pattern suggest the issue was less about whether agencies should have authority and more about how clearly they must disclose that authority when enforcing rules.