North Dakota Administrative Code Title 95 - Agricultural Products Utilization Commission
What is APUC & the Legal Basis
The Agricultural Products Utilization Commission (APUC) is a North Dakota state‐agency entity established by statute. Its purpose is to promote utilization, value‐added processing, research, marketing, and innovation of agricultural products in the state.
The law giving it authority appears in the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) (e.g., Chapter 4‑14.1 or statutes in Agriculture) that empower the Commission to make grants, administer funds (including a fuel tax fund), adopt rules, and determine eligible projects, etc.
Structure of the Administrative Code under Title 95 (APUC)
Title 95 of the North Dakota Administrative Code contains the rules that implement the APUC’s grant programs. The Code is organized into several Articles and Chapters. Some are currently active; others have been repealed. Main components:
| Article / Chapter | Active / Repealed | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Article 95‑01, Chapter 95‑01‑01 | Active | General Administration; Organization of the Commission (purpose, membership, duties). |
| Article 95‑02 — “Research and Marketing Grant Program” | Repealed (as of April 1, 2012) | Older grant program rules no longer in force. |
| Article 95‑02.1 — “Categories and General Procedures for Grant Requests” | Active | It sets out how to apply, eligibility, evaluation criteria, format, etc. |
| Articles 95‑03, 95‑04, 95‑05 | Repealed | These had dealt with Cooperative Marketing Grants; Farm Diversification; Agricultural Prototype Development. |
Key Provisions of the Active Rules (Article 95‑02.1)
Here are some of the core rules in effect, as of the latest administrative code (post‑2012):
Eligibility (Chapter 95‑02.1‑02, Section 95‑02.1‑02‑01)
Preference is given to projects that utilize North Dakota agricultural products, add innovation, create value in food, feed, fuel, fiber, etc
Disqualifications / what is not considered: Projects that are only about business expansion without focus on agricultural product utilization; projects not likely to commercialize; those that duplicate existing efforts; or those from applicants who have not fulfilled prior grant obligations.
Procedure for Grant Requests (Chapter 95‑02.1‑04, Section 95‑02.1‑04‑01)
Applications are limited (e.g. 15 pages unless otherwise specified), must be submitted in correct format, before deadlines.
Required information includes the project description, budget, matching funds, timelines, market potential, prior experience, etc.
Signatures, certifications, and accuracy of representations are required. Misrepresentations may disqualify.
Evaluation Criteria (Chapter 95‑02.1‑03)
While the precise text of that chapter is not fully set out here, the rules give criteria such as commercialization potential, use of ND agricultural products, innovation, shared financial commitment, job/wealth creation, etc.
General and Other Rules
The Commission publishes guidelines, maintains deadlines, holds review meetings (often quarterly) for proposals.
There is also a mechanism for fiscal agents, project advisers, and ensuring lawful and accurate financial reporting.
What Has Changed / Repealed
Several older articles/rules have been repealed. In particular, Articles like 95‑02 (Research & Marketing Grant Program), 95‑03, 95‑04, 95‑05 are no longer active (as of April 1, 2012) and replaced or folded into the current Article 95‑02.1.
So when analysing or applying the current rules, only the non‑repealed, active parts matter.
Practical Implications & How It Operates
Who can apply: Businesses (existing or prospective), researchers, etc., that are actively engaged in using ND agricultural products and pursuing added value. The applicant must meet eligibility; previous grant compliance matters.
What is emphasized: Innovative use, clear value‐add, commercialization potential, job or wealth creation for ND, matching funds, avoiding duplication.
Deadlines & Review: Applications must meet deadlines; often reviewed quarterly. Selection involves presentation to Commission for qualifying applicants.
Format & Content: Strict format; required items (budget, timeline, proof of matching funds, prior performance, market plan etc.). Failure to comply with required format or content can lead to rejection.
Case Law & Interpretive Decisions
Here’s what I found (and what I did not find) regarding case law interpreting these rules or statutes. Important to note: as of my search, I did not find many (if any) reported cases that directly challenge or interpret § Title 95 APUC administrative rules in depth. That does not mean there are none, just that public databases are not showing them readily.
What I found
I found the statutes and regulations themselves (rules, administrative code sections).
I found some organizational and administrative histories (how the APUC was formed, statutory amendments over time) from state archives.
I did not find a published North Dakota Supreme Court or district‑court case that (in the materials I saw) had held the rules of Article 95‑02.1 invalid, or provided a major interpretive precedent about how “innovative” or “commercialization potential” is to be measured for projects under APUC.
What this means
Because some provisions are discretionary (e.g., “preference will be given to…”), much depends on how the Commission applies them. Disputes could occur if someone believes there was unequal treatment, or that the Commission failed to follow its own rules of procedure (due process, fairness, deadlines, format, etc.).
But without reported litigation, there is little to point to as binding precedent about what must be considered, how strictly the criteria are enforced, etc.
Potential Legal Issues / Interpretive Questions
In practice, several legal issues might arise in relation to Title 95 / APUC:
Discretion vs. Burden: Since many terms (e.g. “innovative”, “commercialization potential”) are qualitative, applicants may challenge (on administrative law grounds) whether the Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying a grant, or failed to follow its own rules.
Procedural Requirements: If an applicant was not given adequate notice, or deadlines/formats were changed without transparency, there could be procedural due process claims.
Statutory Limits: Whether the Commission stays within the authority granted by the statute (NDCC) — e.g., ensuring grants are tied to agricultural product utilization, not unrelated business expansion; ensuring repayment clauses are enforced if requirements are unmet.
Equal Protection / Discrimination: If the Commission’s decisions systematically favor certain applicants (by geography, size, prior grants, etc.) without justification, that might raise equal protection or fairness claims.
Contractual Expectations: If a grant is awarded under specific terms, and then the Commission changes criteria or revokes the award, there may be contract or estoppel arguments, depending on grant agreement language.
Summary
To summarise:
Title 95 (APUC) is the set of rules governing how the Agricultural Products Utilization Commission in North Dakota does its grant work: who is eligible, what kinds of projects get preference, how to apply, etc.
Much of the previous set of rules (in earlier articles) has been repealed; the current operative rules are in Article 95‑02.1.
The rules are fairly detailed about application procedure, required content, eligibility, evaluation criteria, and timelines.
There is limited known case law that specifically interprets Title 95 rules; it appears that challenges or legal disputes are either rare or not much reported (in the sources I checked).
RELATED Blog
0 comments