AN ACT to amend and reenact section 18-01-02, subsection 1 of section 18-01-03.1, sections 18-01-06, 18-01-07, 23-15-04, and 54-12-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to updating language for the state fire marshal department and to the attorney general's authority to appoint the state fire marshal; to repeal sections 18-01-35 and 18-01-36 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to fund fees collected by the state fire marshal department; and to provide for a retroactive application.
Senate Bill No. 2090 aims to amend and reenact several sections of the North Dakota Century Code related to the state fire marshal's duties and the attorney general's authority to appoint the state fire marshal. The bill updates the language concerning the enforcement of fire safety laws, the collection of inspection fees, and the reporting of fire incidents. It also includes provisions for the retroactive application of certain sections, specifically regarding the attorney general's role in appointing the state fire marshal.
If enacted, this bill will modernize the legal framework governing the state fire marshal's operations, enhancing the enforcement of fire safety regulations and streamlining the process for fire safety inspections. The repeal of outdated sections regarding fund fees collected by the state fire marshal department will also simplify the regulatory environment. Overall, the bill aims to improve public safety and ensure compliance with national fire incident reporting standards.
The sentiment around Senate Bill No. 2090 appears to be largely positive, as evidenced by the strong support it received during voting in the Senate (45-1) and the House (86-6). There have been no recorded objections or significant opposition in the discussions leading up to the vote, indicating a consensus on the need for these updates.
While there are no notable points of contention reported in the discussions or voting history, the bill's provisions regarding the retroactive application may raise questions among some stakeholders about the implications for past cases. However, no specific opposition has been documented regarding this aspect.