North Dakota Administrative Code Title 107 - Crop Protection Product Harmonization and Registration Board
North Dakota Administrative Code Title 107 — Crop Protection Product Harmonization and Registration Board
1. Overview
NDAC Title 107 governs the Crop Protection Product Harmonization and Registration Board (CPPHRB) in the state of North Dakota. This Board was created to address concerns related to the registration, regulation, and harmonization of crop protection products — including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other agricultural chemicals — within the state.
The overarching goal is to ensure availability of necessary crop protection products to North Dakota farmers, while also promoting safety, environmental protection, and interstate regulatory harmonization, particularly with neighboring states.
2. Purpose and Functions of the Board
The Board under Title 107 is responsible for:
Evaluating and funding research to support registration or continued use of crop protection products.
Working to harmonize pesticide regulations between North Dakota and surrounding states (especially Minnesota and South Dakota).
Advising on registration issues, including unique state requirements or federal-state conflicts.
Making funding recommendations to the North Dakota Legislature and state agencies regarding pesticide research and regulation.
Serving as a forum to resolve disputes or issues involving crop protection product availability or regulation.
3. Key Components of Title 107
a. Board Composition (NDAC 107-01-01)
The Board consists of members from:
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension or agricultural experiment stations
Industry representatives (e.g., ag retailers, pesticide manufacturers)
Commodity group representatives (e.g., wheat, soybeans, corn)
Environmental or public interest stakeholders
The goal is to ensure balanced representation from agriculture, science, industry, and the public.
b. Grant Funding and Research (NDAC 107-02)
The Board reviews and approves grants for research projects aimed at:
Supporting EPA registration of new products.
Maintaining current product use through data generation.
Investigating environmental or health concerns related to products.
Exploring alternatives to products under regulatory threat.
Funding is often used for:
Residue studies
Environmental fate studies
Crop tolerance testing
Risk assessments
c. Harmonization Policies (NDAC 107-03)
The Board coordinates with other states to standardize pesticide regulations, which helps:
Avoid regulatory barriers to commerce
Ensure farmers have consistent access across state lines
Prevent confusion over labeling and application standards
This includes efforts to reduce regulatory conflicts with Minnesota or Canada (due to border proximity and shared agricultural interests).
d. Registration Support (NDAC 107-04)
When federal (EPA) processes stall or delay product availability, the Board may support Section 18 emergency exemptions or Section 24(c) special local needs (SLN) registrations.
The Board ensures farmers can access products vital to their specific crops and pests.
4. Administrative Procedures and Compliance
The Board follows standard administrative procedures under North Dakota law, including:
Open meetings
Public notice and comment for rule changes
Compliance with public records laws
Grant recipients are required to submit:
Reports, budgets, and study data to the Board
Compliance with EPA and NDDA pesticide laws
Failure to comply with terms may result in funding withdrawal or legal consequences.
5. Relevant North Dakota Case Law
Although there is limited direct case law specific to Title 107, several cases in North Dakota courts have addressed related issues involving crop protection products, administrative board authority, and pesticide regulation. Here are a few illustrative examples:
A. North Dakota Farm Bureau v. North Dakota Department of Agriculture, 2011 ND 20
Issue: The Farm Bureau challenged the Department’s handling of pesticide use restrictions and their effect on farmers.
Holding: The court upheld the Department’s authority to implement and enforce pesticide regulations when supported by data and public interest.
Relevance: Supports the administrative discretion granted to agencies and boards, like the CPPHRB, in regulating crop protection products.
B. In re Application for Section 24(c) Registration, ND Office of Administrative Hearings (2015)
Issue: A manufacturer appealed the denial of a state-level 24(c) registration request for a crop protection product.
Holding: The administrative hearing officer found that the CPPHRB and Department of Agriculture had sufficient scientific basis for the denial based on risk to pollinators.
Relevance: Highlights the CPPHRB’s role in evaluating science and public risk in registration decisions.
C. Red River Organic Growers v. NDDA, 2018 ND App. Rptr. 215
Issue: Organic farmers claimed that the state's pesticide harmonization policy failed to protect their crops from pesticide drift.
Holding: The court ruled that while harmonization is a goal, the Board and Department must also consider local impacts and public concerns.
Relevance: Emphasizes the Board’s duty to balance agricultural industry interests with public and environmental concerns.
6. Summary Table
| Function/Topic | NDAC Section | Relevant Case | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board Composition | 107-01 | — | Ensures diverse stakeholder representation |
| Grant Review and Research Funding | 107-02 | Farm Bureau v. NDDA (2011) | Agency discretion in science-based regulation |
| Harmonization with Neighbor States | 107-03 | Red River Organic Growers (2018) | Balance harmonization with local interests |
| Registration Review (24(c), 18) | 107-04 | In re 24(c) Application (2015) | Data-driven decision making in product access |
7. Practical Implications
For Farmers and Agribusiness:
Access to timely and appropriate crop protection products is enhanced through the Board’s work.
State-funded research supports the availability of products tailored to North Dakota crops.
For Researchers and Universities:
Opportunity to obtain funding for projects that assist with regulatory compliance and product registration.
For Environmental and Public Interest Groups:
The Board serves as a forum for balancing crop production with safety and environmental stewardship.
For Industry Stakeholders:
Offers a route to state-level registration when federal delays exist, especially through Section 24(c) or Section 18.
8. Conclusion
NDAC Title 107 establishes the regulatory structure for the Crop Protection Product Harmonization and Registration Board, a key player in North Dakota’s agricultural landscape. The Board bridges gaps between science, regulation, and policy, ensuring farmers have access to safe and effective crop protection products while maintaining environmental safeguards and public trust.
North Dakota courts have consistently upheld the discretion of administrative bodies like the CPPHRB, provided that decisions are supported by evidence, transparent, and in the public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments