HB 276 revises Maryland’s Public Access Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Program, which is administered by the State Emergency Medical Services Board. The bill updates terminology throughout the statute, replacing references to “facilities” with “entities,” and creates a new role for an AED coordinator designated by each registered entity to ensure compliance with program requirements. It also removes older references to regional council AED committees and shifts reporting and oversight functions to the EMS Board and the Institute.
The bill changes the certification and compliance rules for entities that make AEDs available to the public. Registered entities must maintain AED functionality, have a written plan for AED use, notify 911 when an AED is used, and ensure the AED coordinator promotes awareness of AED location and operation. For public buildings, the bill continues to require compliance with the state’s naloxone co-location requirements. Grocery stores and restaurants are treated differently: to qualify for and keep a certificate, they must register with the program and maintain AED equipment, but they are not subject to the broader training and coordinator requirements that apply to other entities covered by the program. The bill also requires grocery stores and restaurants to comply with the separate Health-General Article AED requirements.
HB 276 also creates a specific exemption for law enforcement agencies, providing that an agency may not be required to obtain a certificate for an AED deployed in a patrol vehicle. In addition, the bill preserves civil liability protections for registered entities and individuals acting in good faith, while retaining exceptions for gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or intentional torts. The EMS Board retains authority to issue, renew, deny, suspend, or revoke certificates, and may seek cease-and-desist or injunctive relief for violations.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is supportive of AED access and public safety, with the legislation aimed at modernizing and clarifying program administration rather than restricting AED deployment. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. The structure of the bill suggests a consensus-oriented cleanup and operational update to existing emergency preparedness law.
The main points of potential contention are the reduced compliance burden for grocery stores and restaurants compared with other entities, and the exemption for law enforcement patrol vehicles from certificate requirements. Those provisions may reflect practical concerns about administrative burden and deployment settings, but they also create different regulatory treatment among AED users and owners. The repeal of regional council AED committee references and the shift to AED coordinators may also be notable to stakeholders accustomed to the prior oversight structure.
The bill amends Section 13-517 of the Education Article and Section 21-330.3 of the Health-General Article to revise the state’s AED certification and oversight framework. It changes who must obtain and maintain certificates, defines an AED coordinator, removes obsolete regional council AED committee language, and adds a law-enforcement-specific exemption for AEDs in patrol vehicles. It also updates grocery store and restaurant obligations to align with the Public Access AED Program and preserves existing liability protections and enforcement authority under the EMS Board.
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as it appears to strengthen and modernize public access to AEDs while clarifying administrative responsibilities. The bill was enacted and approved by the Governor, and no committee testimony or vote data were provided indicating organized opposition. The measure appears to have been treated as a technical and policy update focused on emergency preparedness and public safety.
Potential areas of contention include the bill’s different compliance standards for grocery stores and restaurants versus other covered entities, which may be viewed as either a reasonable simplification or an uneven regulatory burden. Another possible issue is the exemption for law enforcement agencies’ patrol vehicles, which relieves those agencies from certificate requirements but could raise questions about consistency in AED oversight. The repeal of regional council AED committee involvement and the move to AED coordinators may also be a point of concern for stakeholders who preferred the prior local review structure.