Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/04/2002 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 487 - FIREWORKS REGULATION Number 0056 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 487, "An Act relating to fireworks; and providing for an effective date." Number 0183 BRIDGET BUSHUE, Fire Marshal, Fire Prevention Division, Anchorage Fire Department, testified via teleconference. She told the committee that there is a wildlands-urban fire problem in Anchorage. Although glad to see the efforts made for requiring some type of fire safety program, fees, and information, she expressed some concerns. The department would like to see a permit requirement for fireworks. House Bill 487 states if there is a fire danger, then fireworks will be banned, but once the fireworks are sold and people have them, there is no mechanism to contact people that have them, other than by public service announcements (PSAs). Currently, when fireworks are advertised on the television, there might be only a two- second blurb in tiny print that says "fireworks are illegal in the municipality of wherever." MS. BUSHUE suggested a permit process would allow the fire department to contact people with fireworks and let them know not to use them at certain times. Right now in Anchorage, people need to get a permit to burn spruce bark beetle [trees] in their yard; yet fireworks are allowed, which have been proven to be an extreme fire hazard in wildland urban areas like Miller's Reach. Other states have adopted legislation whereby permits are required, and there are areas where fireworks can be safely discharged. The permit fees pay for the education and for the maintenance of this program. Number 0373 MS. BUSHUE suggested that when the firework companies advertise, there should be obvious mandatory statements - not just in tiny print - saying they're illegal in the municipality. When the fire department confiscates fireworks over the Fourth of July in Anchorage, the most common statement is, "Well, they're advertised on TV, so I thought it was okay." That has created a major problem, she stated. Ninety-nine percent of the fireworks sold in the [Matanuska-Susitna area] and in Anchorage are a problem. She reiterated that the fire department would like to see the advertising message and some type of records kept on who bought the fireworks. She suggested it be done through some type of permit process. MS. BUSHUE explained that if there is a burning ban because of high fire danger, the fire department can contact those with [burn] permits and tell them not to burn. There are no provisions in HB 487 for people in Anchorage, where the fireworks are illegal, who buy them in Houston. Some type of formalized permit process would be more efficient in controlling [fireworks]. Number 0561 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Bushue if the person buying the fireworks would be given the permit. MS. BUSHUE answered that was correct. She told the members that Honolulu requires a permit; adults have to have fire safety training on how to safely discharge fireworks, and there are areas to discharge fireworks. The permit fees collected pay for that education component. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the purpose of the record of the permittees is an opportunity for the department to challenge the seller if something goes wrong. MS. BUSHUE replied that the purpose of a permit is to educate the adults on safe and proper use of fireworks and to contact them if there is a ban in effect. Number 0778 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it seems Ms. Bushue is talking about a problem in a municipality where fireworks are not allowed. MS. BUSHUE agreed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted there would be no permits allowed for in the city of Anchorage. It seems to her that problem could be solved by a local ordinance. MS. BUSHUE said that fireworks are illegal in the municipality, but they are sold in the state. It's the selling of fireworks in Wasilla that is causing a major problem in the municipality. They are not sold in the municipality, but the problem doesn't go away. CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that HB 487 would put together an advisory committee that would make those kinds of recommendations. A statewide permitting process had not anticipated that problem, so it would be something well within the purview of the advisory committee. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if fireworks on New Year's Day is as problematic as on the Fourth of July. MS. BUSHUE answered no, because of the ground cover, but there have been structure fires when fireworks have been stored inside residences. She explained that the risk of a wildfire or forest fire is greatly decreased because of the snow cover. Number 0997 CHUCK HARRIGAN, Alaska Pyrotechnic Guild, testified via teleconference. He told the committee his nonprofit trade association is interested in the education, training, and safety of its members and the public at large. He referred to Sec. 18.72.101(a) on reduction of insurance requirements. Millions of dollars of insurance is required to produce a show; that is appropriate because if somebody's house is burned down, $50,000 is not an appropriate amount to rebuild the house. MR. HARRIGAN referred to Sec. 18.72.035, which essentially restricts what and when people can discharge. There is no distinction between class B and class C [fireworks] in the proposed legislation. He explained that class C [fireworks] are sold over the counter, and class B [fireworks] are what [professional pyrotechnicians] discharge; however, professional pyrotechnicians discharge class C also. The proposed legislation says bottle rockets can't be used; bottle rockets are used in shows for people who don't have a lot of money but want a show. These are things that can be used in a show to flesh them out a bit, that don't cost a whole lot, and that give the customer the "most bang for the buck." MR. HARRIGAN explained that a wide variety of products and shells are used out there. The [professionals] would have to comply with a lot of regulations just to put on a show. Already they're under close scrutiny, heavily permitted and licensed with insurance, and they take all safety precautions. There is concern that this is going to make someone less accountable by the insurance requirements and place restrictions on the type of shows that can be done. Number 1260 CHAIR COGHILL announced his intention of holding HB 487 over to discuss this with the sponsor. He told Mr. Harrigan that he'd brought up some excellent points, and that the bill may need further work to cover all the concerns expressed. Number 1310 GRIZ SMITH, President, Alaska Pyrotechnic Guild, Inc. (APGI), testified via teleconference. He informed the members that the guild is the state's only manufacturing and display company. It held an emergency meeting on March 9, 2002, to form a consensus of the proposed changes with respect to HB 487. He referred to Sec. 18.72.020(a) and gave the following testimony: The APGI, the Alaska Pyrotechnic Guild, Inc., feels very strongly that insurance requirements should in no way be reduced but rather should be increased. As an example, ... the Miller's Reach fire was in excess of $11 million in firefighting costs alone. This does not include the property damage, temporary housing, relief agency expenditures, or any of the numerous costs associated with this disaster. We suggest that a more appropriate level of insurance would be $5 million in liability coverage, including $2 million in premise/operation coverage, and increased coverage for bodily injury damage to $4 million per occurrence. We feel that as infraction has increased the cost of living, medical costs, and replacement values, it is logical to increase the insurance coverage requirements to reflect this. Additionally, we feel another point should be raised with regard to the liabilities of the sale of fireworks to the general public. Considering the bartender who serves a customer, then the customer leaves the server's premises, the server has no control over the ensuing actions of the customer, yet can be held accountable in civil and criminal proceedings for the actions of his customer. Should it not be the case of the best interest of similar aggressive parties to be able to pay for the medical expenses or replacement of a dwelling incurred through no fault of their own, other than having the misfortune of being in the proximity of a careless person? Number 1510 MR. SMITH referred to Sec. 18.72.035 and gave the following testimony: The APGI disagrees with the wording of this section for several reasons. For a fireworks production company/wholesaler to deliver a show to a customer, the product must be sold and transferred to the sponsor. This section therefore restricts the option that a wholesaler can sell or that a customer can buy to produce the legally permitted show, which often includes both class C and class B pyrotechnic devices of many types, which are now not necessarily aerial. No distinction is made of types or classes in this language. While the APGI recognizes the intent [of] the language is to address the dry season potential for fire, we feel the language is too broad in scope and restrictive to professionally produced shows for professional pyrotechnics are already required to comply with the plethora of laws and regulations set down by the USDOT [United States Department of Transportation], the BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms], NFPA [National Fire Protection Association], USCG [United State Coast Guard], the Alaska Department of Public Safety, and local agencies. We feel restrictions of this nature may only lead to further restriction of our already highly regulated trade and the manner in which we are permitted to display fireworks for the enjoyment of the people of Alaska. Number 1600 MR. SMITH referred to Sec. 18.72.045 and gave the following testimony: Many different types of violations occur all the time by unscrupulous display operators - for an example, using a rented box van without any placards to transport fireworks. The APGI feels that the amendment should address more than just a violation of this chapter. It should include a provision/regulation authorizing the enforcement of any and all applicable federal, state, municipal, borough, and community rules and regulations with regard to the purchase, sale, manufacture, transportation, and other activities relating to fireworks. For an example, if a violation of a DOT regulation occurred in the North Slope Borough, this could be difficult in regard to the reporting of enforcement of it. The APGI believes the state fire marshal's office should have the authority to investigate all DOT, NFPA, and ATF, et cetera, violations. This should not be a problem, as the agency has already adopted the laws and regulations of these agencies as policies. Number 1690 Additionally, the APGI believes a $1,000 fine is minimal. The fine should be increase to $5,000 per occurrence. The APGI agrees with this amendment with clarification and a larger fine. We propose the amendment read as follows: "a regulation that includes; subject to any and all state, federal, borough, city, and community laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the purchase, sales, manufacturing, transportation, storage, and display of fireworks by any and all federal and state regulations that a person or persons who recklessly violates the provision in this chapter is liable after notice and opportunity for a hearing to the State of Alaska for a civil penalty of $5,000 or more each violation." MR. SMITH referred to Sec. 18.72.080 and gave the following testimony: The APGI agrees with and supports the formation of a fireworks advisory committee as described in this amendment. The APGI would like to thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions and concerns on this matter. We commend you on the intent of this legislation to make our industry safer for all Alaskans. We recognize that the legislators' time in session is limited and valuable, and believe that an amended bill which addresses our concerns will enable the language to withstand potential unconstitutional challenges with regard to restriction of trade. Number 1888 GARY POWELL, Director/State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire Prevention, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference. He pointed out that the insurance requirements have not changed in the new bill; the existing requirements were exactly the same. Part of the confusion may be that the scope of HB 487 is to address retail fireworks sales and not the pyrotechnic displays; if there is confusion, however, it is probably a good idea to hold it over and clarify the pyrotechnic concerns. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked how many members are in the APGI, and how many retailers are in the state. MR. POWELL replied that there is an average of about 18 retail licenses per year. So far this year, only eight have registered, but typically, there will be more the closer it gets to the Fourth of July. MR. SMITH told Representative Fate that there are approximately 50 licensed display operators in the state of Alaska. CHAIR COGHILL announced that HB 487 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|