HB 146-REGULATION OF FIREWORKS  3:21:36 PM CHAIR SHAW announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 146, "An Act relating to fireworks; repealing restrictions on the sale of fireworks; directing the Department of Public Safety to adopt fireworks regulations; and providing for an effective date." 3:22:24 PM LISA PURINTON, Acting Legislative Liaison, Department of Public Safety (DPS), provided brief introductory remarks on HB 146, on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor. 3:22:57 PM LLOYD NAKANO, State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire and Life Safety, Department of Public Safety, presented HB 146 on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor. He directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation on the bill [included in the committee packet], and began on slide 2, titled "What does the bill do," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • House Bill (HB 146) repeals and reenacts Alaska Statute (AS) 18.72.010 for the regulation of fireworks • The Department of Public Safety is required to adopt regulations to establish minimum standards for the sale and use of fireworks • International Fire Code (IFC) standards • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes • Federal Regulations • Repeals • AS 18.72.020: Regulation of salable fireworks • AS 18.72.030: Fireworks wholesaler's license • AS 18.72.100: Definitions 3:25:04 PM MR. NAKANO continued to slide 3, titled "Why is the bill needed," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Existing statute (AS 18.72) originally adopted over 50 years ago without being substantially amended • Out of date with modern regulations set at the national and international level • Statutory changes are not easily undertaken 3:25:58 PM MR. NAKANO turned to slide 4, titled "What is changed under this bill," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Criminal penalties under AS 18.72.040 would be based on failure to comply with regulations under AS 18.72.010 instead of the Fire Safety Code Regulations under AS 18.72.010 would supersede the provisions of an ordinance adopted by a city of borough, whether before or after May 23, 1969, that are less restrictive than the regulations The Fire Safety Code defined in AS 18.72.100 would be repealed and redefined in regulations adopted by the Department of Public, Fire and Life Safety Division MR. NAKANO concluded on slide 5, welcoming questions from members of the committee. 3:27:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG inquired about the bill's impact on private companies selling fireworks and the industry in general. MR. NAKANO stated that the bill would make it easier for the industry. 3:27:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, returning to slide 4, sought to verify that the provisions in HB 146 would supersede municipal ordinance. He asked how many cities would be impacted by the proposed legislation. MR. NAKANO said the bill would not impact municipalities or boroughs. Nonetheless, he pointed out that municipalities could make their own determination to be more stringent. 3:29:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that the bill would make the law less restrictive; however, local municipalities could choose to enact more restrictive code. MR. NAKANO confirmed that the bill would not prohibit municipalities from regulating more restrictively. MS. PURINTON, in response to Representative Story and Representative Carpenter, noted that the language in AS 18.72.060 would be repealed from statute and replaced in regulation; therefore, municipalities would not be impacted. She offered to provide a sectional analysis of the bill. 3:30:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON shared his understanding that state statute took precedent over municipal ordinance. He expressed his confusion as to how regulation could override a municipal bill. MS. PURINTON deferred to the Department of Law (DOL). 3:32:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON restated his question regarding the weight of a statute overruling municipal ordinance versus the weight of a regulation overruling municipal ordinance. MR. NAKANO stated that regulations were statewide whereas local jurisdictions could be more stringent. He referenced the international fire code, building code, field gas code, and mechanical code. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON contended that those codes were adopted into statute. MR. NAKANO shard his understanding that the international fire code, building code, and mechanical code were adopted into regulation by DPS. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her understanding municipalities could not supersede state law. 3:35:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER directed attention to page 2, line 20- 22, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: However, nothing in this section affects the authority of a city or organized borough under other law to prohibit or regulate more restrictively than regulations adopted under AS 18.72.010 CHAIR SHAW asked whether that answered Representative C. Johnson's question. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON said not entirely. He asked whether municipal code could be less restrictive than regulation. CHAIR SHAW asked Ms. Purinton to follow up on the committee's questions. 3:37:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the class B [misdemeanor], as referenced in the bill, was resulting from a violation of statute or a violation of regulation created by the commissioner. MS. PURINTON offered to follow up with the requested information. 3:39:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed attention to page 2, lines 6-8, and asked whether DPS was authorized to enter [residential] or commercial buildings where fireworks were stored or kept. MS. PURINTON deferred to the state fire marshal for clarification. MR. NAKANO responded, "businesses would be for the retail, post- sale, and displays." REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the language in question needed further clarification to avoid entrance into residential property. MS. PURINTON offered to follow up with the requested information. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD agreed that the language [on page 2, lines 6-8] needed further clarification. 3:41:11 PM CHAIR SHAW shared his understanding that the legislation was accompanied by a zero fiscal note. MS. PURUNTON answered yes. 3:41:25 PM CHAIR SHAW opened public testimony on HB 146. After ascertaining that no one online or in person wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 3:42:35 PM CHAIR SHAW announced that HB 142 would be held over.