House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Thursday, February 6, 2025. 2:00 p.m. at Conference Room 329. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while testifying and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues, although if you are disconnected, you can tell them and they'll tell me.

If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. With that being said, let's start it up. First up on the agenda is HB205HD1 relating to workers compensation. We have one testifier here today. Cathy Wilson in support, standing on her written testimony and support.

And I'm sorry for the future, if you guys could come to the mic. Just because the people on Zoom and the people online can't hear you if you're. If you're not on the mic. Oh, thank you.

Hi, I'm Cathy Wilson and I stand on my testimony and support. And I'm in. I'm available for any questions.

Yep, thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Yeah, please.

Hello, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, Members of the Committee, David Rogers of the Department of Labor Industrial Relations. I believe we submitted testimony on this bill and we stand on that testimony and support which would codify and regulate non prescription over the counter or non legend drugs at a reasonable rate.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Okay, hearing none. Members, any questions? All right, let's move on. HB 480 HD1 relating to workers compensation. First up, DLIR in support.

Thank you. Chair David Rogers with the Department of Labor Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony and support which encourages timely and accurate assessments of injured workers physical abilities.

Thank you. Next up, we have DHRD in support. Perfect timing. We have DHRD in support. Are you referred. This is 480.

Good afternoon, Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Brenna Hashimoto, Director of the Department of Human Resources Development. And we'll stand on our written testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. You guys gotta make an entrance like that, you know, really emphasizes the testimony. Okay, anyone else here to testify in this measure? Okay. Members, any questions on this?

Okay.

Seeing none. We'll move on to HB331HD1 relating to permits. First up, we have the University of Hawaii in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jan Gouvea, on behalf of the University of Hawaii, we stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next up, we have DLNR in support. DLNR, okay. Not present. Next up, we have DOE in support. The State Departments. All right. Board of Water Supply in opposition.

Kathy Mitchell, the Board of Water Supply. We're opposed to this bill. And I reached out to three of the engineers that go through the review process. They're all opposed. And if you have any questions, I'll take it back and get an answer for you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next up, Hawaii School Facilities Authority and support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Doug Collison with the School Facilities Authority. We stand by our written testimony. We did have one recommendation, to add renovations to the definition of repeatable projects. That is a big project of ours for the preschool conversion program.

Thank you. Okay, last up, we have Greg Misakian in opposition.

Chair. Thank you. My name is Greg Misakian and I do oppose this bill because I have serious concerns that our department of planning and permitting currently is not properly staffed, is not properly able to do the job that they need to do. There's been many new stories that we've all read. I'm sure many of you have read.

I experience firsthand, experience this firsthand at my condominium Association, where we have quite a bit of deferred maintenance, but projects that do require proper permitting, we've had work stoppages that have been ignored, things of that nature. I do know that the. The engineering review is for plan review is very limited and scope.

Very often it's ignored and there's just too much at stake here. So in my building, it's a commercial building, but I know that the people that are supporting this want a way around to move things forward. And I'm all for speeding things up, but I don't feel that superseding the permitting process is the way to do it.

So I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I hope that you will listen to the Board of Water Supply also. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? All right, moving on to HB 72 HD1 relating to pharmacy. First up, we have the Board of Pharmacy with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Oh, sorry, it's afternoon. Sorry. My name is Christopher Fernandez. I'm an Executive Officer at the PVL. I'm here to stand on the board's testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Hawaii Pharmacists Association in support.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Corrie Sanders, Director of the Hawaii Pharmacists Association. I just want to take my two minutes to really emphasize the importance of getting this done sooner rather than later and kind of provide some additional context as to what services pharmacy technicians are currently providing.

So in the community, we passed one of the biggest vaccination bills in the country last year on the wings of COVID that now allow pharmacy technicians to continue to administer vaccinations in this state. And they're involved in direct patient care.

And then in our hospital settings, we have pharmacy technicians that are compounding chemotherapy medications, they have direct access to narcotics, and they're doing other really important essential functions of a health care team. Right now we're the only state in the country that doesn't have a list of pharmacy technicians that are practicing within the state.

So I want to provide just two examples of if there's any kind of patient harm with vaccine related injury or any kind of patient care with medication errors and compounding, there's no way to report that outside of the healthcare system that they work in.

And then with pharmacy technicians in the community setting and in the hospital setting, if you have a technician that is diverting medications or narcotics, they could essentially be working at one community pharmacy today and be fired once that's found out, and then go to work at another pharmacy tomorrow.

So again, I really don't think there's any room to delay in putting this measure into place to make sure that we at least have a list of the technicians in the state that are practicing and we can communicate and monitor from there. I'll stand by for any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Walgreens and company in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Walgreens stands on its written testimony in support.

Yep, they're standing on the written testimony in support. Next up, we have Moloka'i Drugs Incorporated in support.

Good afternoon. Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, and Members of the Committee on Consumer Protection. As a rural Health care provider access to comprehensive, high quality health care services is our mission at Moloka'i Drugs. On behalf of our employees and patients, I am testifying in favor of HB 72, which will create necessary regulations for pharmacy technicians in our state.

At Moloka'i drugs, now celebrating 90 years of service, our pharmacy technicians are essential in workflow management. From data entry, to helping confirm inventory management, to contacting providers on island and off island, to product dispensing, to giving the prescription to the verifying pharmacist and returning the final medicine to the patient at point of sale.

Hawaii is the only state in the United States without an active managed list of practicing pharmacy technicians. Beyond enhancing our Moloka'i patient safety, this measure will lay the foundation for pharmacy technicians in Hawaii to expand their scope of practice in the future.

Across the country, pharmacy technicians are taking on advanced roles such as administering immunizations and assisting with medication management. Right now, our pharmacy technicians at Moloka'i Drugs administer over 50% of our immunizations. Without regulation, Hawaii risks falling behind in providing the best possible care to our communities, especially rural communities like Moloka'i with very limited medical resources.

Many of our people, especially our kupuna, have challenges getting on island healthcare. With only one airline and no ferry providing transportation, our people have even more challenges getting to Oahu, Maui and the mainland for medical services and procedures.

HB 72 also comes at a very reasonable price tag and even small pharmacies such as Moloka'i drugs are willing to pay for these regulations. On behalf of our 7,000 full-time residents, we ask that you support HB 72 and help Hawaii become the 50th State of 50 to finally align our pharmacy technicians with national standards.

Our Moloka'i-based pharmacy technicians live full-time on our island and know our people. They work hand in hand with our licensed pharmacists. Our pharmacy technicians are essentially, our essential health care employees and they help keep Moloka'ians healthy and thriving. Thank you and mahalo.

All right, thank you. That's all the testifiers we have signed up. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll move on to HB 139 HD1, relating to insurance. First up, we have DCCA Insurance Division, with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The DCCA stands on its written testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Next up, we have HMSA in support. Not present. Anyone else here to testify in this measure?

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Emmanuel Zibakalam here on behalf of HSCO, The Hawaii Society for Clinical Oncologists. We did submit written testimony for today. I did see a couple of the comments put forth by the departments and I wanted to speak to it briefly.

In regards to the defrail argument, I did want to put on record that the federal HHS put out a memorandum earlier, in 2022, I believe, saying that as long as you were bracketed in your state healthcare benefits, that deferral wouldn't be an issue. And currently, fertility preservation is bracketed in Hawaii State Healthcare Brackets.

Additionally, in regards to the prepaid healthcare discussion that's been continuing regarding this measure, there was a conversation that was—that happened at DLIR, afterwards of last year's session, as we did try and pass this Bill last year, and I believe that there was a little bit of a conflation with other mandates being put forth.

But due to fertility preservation being bracketed for Hawaii, it would appear, at least from that discussion, that there was not an issue with our prepaid healthcare system. And those are all the comments I have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Excuse me. Anyone else here to justify this measure? Members, any questions? See None. We'll move on to HB302, HD1 relating to cannabis. First up, we have the AGS with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Andrew Goff, Deputy Attorney General. We have submitted written comments, but just to briefly summarize, the bill would essentially allow a person to apply to the Department of Health to be a medical cannabis patient and before the Department of Health approves them, purchase up to 2 ounces of cannabis.

This becomes a problem if the Department of Health determines that they are ineligible and denies their application. That person or their caregiver could be in possession of up to 2 ounces of cannabis or cannabis products, and depending on what those products are, that could carry a criminal penalty of anywhere between a misdemeanor or a Class C felony.

Now, given that the Department of Health's turnaround time for applications is currently two to three days and they have the capacity to expedite that. They have had instances where a Doctor calls them directly and they can turn something around in a matter of hours, we would suggest that the risk here does not outweighs the reward.

So I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, we have Department of Health with comments.

Good afternoon. Kyle Brandt with the Department of Health. We stand on a written testimony offering comments. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ty Cheng with the Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association. We stand in support of this bill. The Attorney General may be correct in that it takes up to three days now, but there are instances where it can take up to seven days.

The Attorney General is also incorrect that there is any denial for eligibility in the program. The Department of Health actually doesn't have that type. They don't step in the way of whether a physician qualifies the patient.

When a physician deems that a person has a qualifying condition and submits that application to the Department of Health, the registry supervisor who had just testified for the Department of Health in the last testimony, in the last Committee had agreed that they have never denied any patient and never has stood in the way of the patient physician relationship to question whether or not a patient has a qualifying condition.

This bill is similar to House Bill 951 which will be heard by Health Committee next week, which allows for a three day supply of opioids to be provided to a patient through telemedicine where currently in person physician visit is required to gain access to their opioids.

I think that it's unfair and cruel to allow for a patient to suffer three to seven days while they wait for medication. As a compromise, the industry is suggesting that we lower the limit to one ounce for a patient to purchase.

Currently, the Department of Health deems that a patient's allotment for every 15 days is 4 ounces of cannabis. This would be a quarter of the amount that a patient is deemed allowed for half the time if it was up to a one week period to wait for their medicine.

We ask that the Committee consider these amendments and I'm available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up we have Akamai Cannabis Consulting with comments.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dr. Clifton Otto offering comments. You have my written testimony and I just wanted to add that it would be very helpful for medical cannabis patients if they were able to go directly from their certification evaluation to a dispensary and gain immediate access.

However, the way this bill goes about it I think is problematic for the Department and the dispensaries for the reasons that I outlined in my written testimony. And I believe there's a simpler solution that would be much easier to implement, would be far more effective and would satisfy the AG's concerns, which I've also included in my testimony.

So thank you for considering my testimony and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up we have Kir Oahu in support. Not present anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members Any questions? Okay, I have one for Department of Health afternoon. So in your testimony you said that the average turnaround time is about two to three business days. There.

There has been testimony from others that it's taken quite a bit longer. I understand averages are kind of a weird beast sometimes. Can you speak to how long it could take? I guess. What are kind of the outer outliers here?

Yeah, so our average is two or three business days. It's often faster. The only reason that application would be delayed is if it's incomplete. There's not. Forms are missing, information is incorrect. That would just delay until the patient or the provider resubmits the application to DoH.

Okay, and how often is an application typically denied? Like what percentage of applications are denied outright denied?

I don't have that figure. Offhand, we do return quite a bit of applications. I would say roughly about 20%.

Have you. I'm sorry, you said before that you have an expedited process. How does one request an expedited process?

So certain conditions are already prioritized. Cancer, minor patients, etc. We do allow providers or patients to call us if they need. They have extending waging circumstances and need their certification approved earlier or you know, moved up to the top of the list.

Is that made clear on the application itself or is that other educational literature?

No, that's just our internal policy. Providers know that that's available and we do get called quite a bit.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Members, any other questions?

Alright, seeing none. We'll move on to HB 470 HD1 relating to noise. First up we have DOE with comments. Not present. Next up, Department of Health with comments.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Kurano. I'm the Administrator of the Environmental Health Services Division. We absolutely always support any opportunity to reduce noise pollution when possible.

We just have some comments on in our testimony about regulating strictly on decibel levels and are available and stand on for any questions and stand on a written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Retail Merchants of Hawaii in opposition.

Aloha and good afternoon, I'm Tina Yamaki with the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. And yes we are in opposition. This measure would mean that on or before July 1, 2028, retailers could no longer sell these gas powered leaf blowers and string cutters or weed whackers as we know them. It's likely to impose hardship on our small locally-owned businesses.

Especially if they don't are not able to meet the deadline and they have to liquidate their inventory. It's not like they can send it to the mainland or a sister store like a lot of the national companies could do. We also want to point out that there is limited choices on heavy duty commercial equipment on the market.

Most cordless, electric or battery powered wheat blowers have about a 20 to 45 minute runtime charge while weed whackers and string trimmers have about a 35-minute run. And if you have a large property, it's not like you can stick an extension cord or plug it into the side of a building and stuff. It just doesn't reach a lot of times.

The technology is not there. It's getting there, but it's not there yet. And we also wonder with all this push for electric leaf blowers and string trimmers, what's going to happen with all these lithium batteries once they run out of juice?

Because Hawaii doesn't really have a recycling or a place to really store these things that are very combustible and dangerous. Thank you for this opportunity and if you have any questions, I'll stick around for them. Thank you.

Next up we have Gregory Masakian. Greg Masakian in support.

Thank you. While I do support this, the previous testifier was very well spoken. So there's things that sometimes we all forget, including myself. What I'm going to ask is something that I put into my written testimony which I'm pulling up.

I would like to ask that you amend this and I'm going to ask that you amend it also with the previous testifier's request to address the concerns. Because if you've got a large property and you've got a gas powered leaf blower or a weed trimmer, you should be able to use that if you're not bothering anybody.

I think the key element here is the noise that bothers people that is actually excessive and affects their sleep if they're being woken up in the morning or trying to go to sleep at night.

So one thing I'll also ask if you could amend this Bill and, and really make it something more substantiated or substantial I should say is a better word is to look at the early trash pickup, which is a big problem on the island. Sometimes these trash companies are coming at 3, 4 in the morning.

We got to stay on topic here. This is about leaf blowers, not trash.

I understand. Yeah, that's fine. But I would ask that you address all of the noise. And I get it that it's the leaf blowers, but if you could address the decibel level and the early start times and.

Thank you. Do you have anything more on leaf blowers or. Okay, no, that's.

That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chen and Members of the Committee. My name is Ted Boland. I was for 20 years representing the Department of Health on environmental matters until 2020. And this is another type of environmental pollution, noise pollution, contrary to the statement of the retail merchants. We are not, we are not banning gas leaf blowers.

There are gas leaf blowers that are quieter. What we're trying to do is make it quieter for everybody and reduce the nuisance. Doesn't have to be electric, necessarily. Other technologies, we'll see, but we certainly can try to get things quieter. This Bill is reasonable in that it doesn't ban usage now.

It doesn't say you can't use your gas leaf blowers. It just says when you buy new gas leaf blowers in three years, you will have to buy a quieter one. And I think that's in everybody's interest.

And I urge the Committee to pass this Bill and give a break to the people who not only sleep, but also, if you're working from home, it's pretty hard to have a meeting. So please, please pass this Bill. Thank you very much. I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have. Oh, I'm sorry. Anyone else here to testify?Members, any questions? Go ahead. Rep. Uoto.

Thank you Chair, I have a question for the Department.

Which Department?

Sorry, the one who testified on this Bill. Sorry, I. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Matt Kurano, Department of Health.

Yeah. This Bill has a very broad title relating to noise. And you heard the retail merchants speak about the actual device. Is there a way to address the noise pollution more broadly in terms of impact on people who can hear it?

For instance, you know, we heard about a large property where maybe no one else hears it because your property, your state is so big, you know.

But regarding if you have a smaller property and then all your neighbors can hear it, is there a way to configure this where it's addressing the recipient of the noise pollution in terms of regulating?

So it includes leaf blowers, but it also could include garbage pickup in the middle of the night because there's some decibel banging at a certain level? Like, is there a way to say you can't do certain kinds of noise producing things in certain areas?

And then also take into account what I think Mr. Misakian is bringing up is when you're in a urban area and there's buildings and the sound is ricocheting, that that has its own thing.

So is there a way to put a decibel listening device on from where the person impacted is where that can be measured and it's not just located to the device of the leaf blower for instance. That's the question to you.

Before you answer, I don't want to get off track with garbage pickup or anything like that. If we read the Bill, it is really very clearly defined as leaf blowers, weed trimmers, string trimmers or weed whackers and string trimmers.

So while the title is very broad, I'd like you to at least confine your comments to that, please.

I understand. Chair Matt Kurano Department of Health, Environment Health Services Division Noise is very complicated. String trimmers in particular are operated for only a limited period of time. It's often an issue associated more with the urban area as opposed to rural areas where there may be more space.

Our Department regulates like stationary sources of noise because that is something that can be measured. It's generally chronic.

We do have concerns about these kind of intermittent or short-lived like string trimmers noise and there's not often a very simple solution and many places it's dealt with at the county level because of the differences between like an urban and a rural type environment and the tolerance for it. Thank you.

Thank you Members. Any other questions? Okay, let's move on to HB534HD1 relating to labeling requirements. First up we have DLNR and support report.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members David Sakota for DLNR. We'll stand on our written testimony offering comments and a proposed amendment and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next up, Department of Agriculture with comments.

Aloha Chair. Aloha Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written testimony offering comments to this measure supporting the intent and hoping we can move it forward for further discussion. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up we have. oh, we got you on twice. Department of agriculture. I'm assuming there's not two. Okay. Next up, Fishing Tales with Mike Sakamoto in support.

Good afternoon Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Sakamoto on behalf of Fishing Tales with Mike Sakamoto will stand on our testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a number of individuals testifying. Some people only left their first name. So I'm going to try my best. Ty Nee Sia in support. Okay. Nelson in support. Reneta K In support. They all have in person, too. Okay. And Davina in support. Okay. Anyone else here to testify in this measure, please?

Yeah. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Eric Kingma, Executive Director of the Hawaii Longline Association. Hawai'I Lawnline Association, is definitely in support of this bill. Ahi is a way of life here in Hawai'I. It's cultural, it's socioeconomic. It's so popular that it's basically proliferated across the country as well as the world.

And the issue with that is there's now a lot of different grades of poke here in Hawaii. The tuna that's landed here is all fresh. None of it's frozen at sea. It's not gas treated, it's not previously frozen.

But you see a lot of the previously frozen gas treated ahi in the retail marketplace as well as poke shops. And there's different grades of that now because it's popularity. And there's this new product now that's called Vitamin Tuna that's actually injected with artificial dyes, taking brown ahi and turning it pink.

And so really, this is a consumer protection issue. People want to know where their ahi comes from. And so really appreciative of the Committee hearing this bill. Other states have passed similar bills to protect consumers as well as their fishing industries in the Gulf with shrimp, most recently.

And really, I think the intent really should be focused on processed raw ahi, nothing else, not canned tuna. You know, so we want to, you know, make sure we're not doing that. It's really about the raw poke, that and sashimi sushi products that we should be concerned about.

Just recently, Senator Schatz and Senator Cruz introduced bipartisan legislation on the federal level that would support funding to detect ahi origin. So this issue is beyond Hawaii that we're focusing here in this state because it is really ahi as part of our normal daily lives.

But there is interest across the country on this issue about origin of seafood. As you can see in the testimony, this issue doesn't seem controversial, but there's a lot of support across the state. The people want and want to see the origin of their ahi. And then in terms of enforcement of this measure.

It's been two minutes. If you could start to summarize.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. It's for the Department.

All departments.

No, for the Department that testified. I'm so sorry. Okay. I can't keep track that's okay. That's okay. Thank you, Chair. So we heard originally this was for, I think, raw ahi, and then it was amended to be process ahi.

And I think there's a proposal to change it to raw processed. The definition. I understand, raw. What's the difference between processed and raw processed.

Thanks for the question again. David Sakota with dlnr so when the original Bill was heard, the Department of the Attorney General provided testimony that the regulation of country of origin labeling is federally regulated. And there's a carve out so that states can regulate ingredients that are processed or food that's like an ingredient in a processed food item.

So their recommendation was to change it from raw ahi to processed ahi. I think the unintended consequence was to fold in canned tuna and other processed ahi products.

So our testimony, I think, addresses both those needs to narrow it down to raahi, but to also address the preemption concern so that this bill is not preempted by federal law.

Okay. And so just to follow up, when you say raw process, that means once you cut into the fish, it's now one cut makes it processed.

So unprocessed seafood, I believe, is already subject to the country of origin labeling requirements by the Federal Government. It's exempt once it becomes processed. And so poke, if you add it as an ingredient in like a poke dish or sushi, it becomes exempt from that labeling law.

So this would require that any raw ahi products that are part of those exempt categories of seafood would be subject to labeling.

Got it. And a last question, Chair, if I may. Yeah. So this is about. You could label it Honolulu. I mean, our Hawaii. So it's not going to be labeled USA It'll be labeled Hawaii. Is that correct?

My understanding, it would be the country, not the state, not anything lower than the country level. But if that's something that the Legislature might want to clarify, you know, we'll provide testimony on that. If, if that's changed in support of that. I think we'd have to look at the legal implications of that.

Any other questions? I have one for Department of Health. Before you sit down, one more for me.

This is. Sorry, I'm with Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The Department.

All right.

So the bill has a $230,000 limit. I guess we're targeting the bigger guys. Is there any concern that the smaller processors might also be doing this, that we might want to expand this bill at all?

I believe that's federally defined or there's some definition that we're using a federal statute as kind of a benchmark. But should we be. I don't have a good answer to that. I would maybe defer to the Attorney General's Department to see if there's any. Any concerns with reducing that threshold amount. Okay.

I don't think they testified, but maybe we'll follow up with them. Thank you.

Thanks.

Any other questions? Let's move on to the last one on the agenda, HB 47 HD 1, relating to aquaculture. First up, DOA, in support.

Thank you, Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. We'll stand on our written testimony in support. We like risk assessments that inform frameworks and ways to reduce pests coming in through any kind of commodity. So, really support this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have Agribusiness Development Corporation, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Frank Gampeno, on behalf of the Agribusiness Development Corporation. ADC stands on its written testimony in support and is available for any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll take a brief recess. Recess.

Reconvening. We have a number of items on the agenda today. We'll go through them. HB 205, HD1, is first up, relating to workers compensation. We have some discussion on this, ongoing.

I'd like to defer decision making, for now, to next week's agenda. Next up, we have HB 480, HD 1, relating to workers compensation. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. It already has a defective date. Members, any comments? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Next up, HB 331, HD 1, relating to permits. Chair's recommendation is said to adopt the school facility authorities' proposed amendment. Any comments?

Oh, I'll be voting with reservations, citing the Board of Water Supplies' concerns.

Thank you. Members, any other comments? Okay. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Next up is HB 72, HD 1, relating to pharmacy. We are going to include a note in the—Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. We are going to—I'm sorry—we'll, we'll pass—Chair's recommendation is to amend this Bill to note that we are going to exempt this from the sunrise analysis, as we are the very last State of the nation to do this.

But with that minor amendment, any comments from the Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up, HB 139, HD 1, relating to insurance. Chair's recommendation is to make some technical amendments. We found the—one of the entities mislabeled or misnamed, but other than that, just second amendments. Any comments? Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to HB 302, HD 1, relating to cannabis. Chair's recommendation is to eliminate language allowing purchase prior to application approval and to adopt DoH's proposed amendment to limit prescriptions and certifications to those that shall originate from within the state. Members, any comments? Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Next up, HB 470, HD 1, relating to noise. Chair's recommendation is to restore the government entity exemption for use but require that future leaf blower, string trimmer, or weed whacker purchases by government entities meet the ANSIB-175.2 rating.

I'd also like to replace the 65 weighted decibels when measured from a distance of 50 ft language with compliance with ANSIB-175.2 rating requirement instead. Members, any comments? If not, Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Wait, sorry, just to clarify, the government entity exemption would be there, but to—the future purchases would be at that future date in the Bill, not immediately. So, they would be the same kind of a three-year ish gap for the government, as well. Okay, I just want to do that before you close the poll.

Okay. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Next up, HB 534, HD 1, relating to labeling requirements. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the DLNR amendment to raw processed Ahi to exclude process Ahi, like canned tuna. I'd also like to change the entity to DCCA from DOA. Members, any comments? Vice Chair. for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Last up on the agenda we've got HB 47, HD 1, relating to aquaculture. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from the Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics Association's testimony, which would place the standard—standards—and approvals process under the direction and oversight of the state aquaculture veterinarian and also allow preexisting permits to remain in force.

There's also some ambiguity under the retail establishment definition, so we're going to clarify that, to make it clear that it only includes retail establishments that purchase over $230,000 a year of fresh or frozen produce. Members, any comments? Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. We are adjourned.