Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/01/2002 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 399-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE [Contains discussion pertaining to HB 436 and HB 437] CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 399, "An Act relating to the Uniform Mechanical Code and other safety codes; annulling certain regulations adopted by the Department of Community and Economic Development relating to the mechanical code that applies to certain construction contractors and mechanical administrators; and providing for an effective date." [HB 399 was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review.] Number 0226 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, speaking as the chair of the mechanical code subcommittee, informed the committee that by a vote of 2-1, the subcommittee had amended Version F. There was a new Version J, which the subcommittee recommended to the full committee. Version J amends AS 08.40.490(3) so that reference to the Uniform Mechanical Code is deleted and the division is directed to refer to the mechanical code adopted by the Department of Public Safety (DPS); it annuls the regulations adopted by the Division of Occupational Licensing - 12 AAC 21.990(7) and 12 AAC 39.992(b); from the effective date through December 31, 2003, it permits applicants for a mechanical administrator's license to be tested on either the 1997 edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) or the 2000 edition of the International Mechanical Code (IMC) - applicant's choice; and it adds an immediate effective date. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the Division of Occupational Licensing currently administers the [IMC exam] and would check on the costs to go back to the old [UMC]. He stated, "At the time, the contracted test service only charged $100 for the '97 UMC to be taken." He surmised that there shouldn't be any problem with doing that again, but said it hadn't been verified. Number 0435 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 399, version 22- LS1461\J, Bannister, 3/28/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version J was before the committee. Number 0467 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what will happen after December 31, 2003, because up to that date an applicant can choose either the UMC exam or the IMC exam. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the Division of Occupational Licensing will administer the IMC [exam], unless the legislature changes that. Number 0505 CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it wasn't clear to her in reading through [HB 399] what will happen after year-end 2003. She asked if HB 436 and HB 437 were still being reviewed. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, "Section 1 indicates it's the code adopted by the Department of Public Safety at that time, and then the uncodified law in Section 3 explains how the process is to be done. It defaults in Section 1 back to the IMC." Number 0558 CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it's "less than clear." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that it is because of the way it's drafted. He noted that the UMC has been taken out of Section 1 and that new language has been added: "and the mechanical code adopted by the Department of Public Safety under AS 18.70.080;". Currently, the adopted codes are IMC codes. He referred to Section 3, which explains the timeframe and gives direction to the Division of Occupational Licensing as to the election of either examination by the applicant. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the Division of Occupational Licensing had confirmed whether the 1997 [UMC] test would be available. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is the only question outstanding at this juncture. Number 0620 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development, informed the committee that the division has asked "the contractor" and hasn't received an answer. She said the Division of Occupational Licensing was offering the [1997 exam] as recently as September. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the administration fee for the 1997 UMC exam was $100. MS. REARDON replied in the affirmative, adding that the division also charges $100 for the IMC test. In further reply, she said the contractor charges the division $100. The fee was $75 under the last contract. The reason the contractor charges the division for rewriting the exam is because the contractor doesn't make enough from the $100 fees. Number 0704 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon if she would "feel bad" about negotiating with the contractors for re-establishing the 1997 UMC exam for $100. MS. REARDON said she doesn't have any problem asking the contractors to do that. She speculated that it wouldn't be too difficult for the division to offer [applicants] the choice. There is the public policy question for the legislature to determine whether or not the division should be testing on both [sets of mechanical codes] if only one is in effect. Number 0739 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked when the new, revised UMC test will be released. MS. REARDON explained that the test revisions were triggered by the division's asking the testing company to revise the exam. The code updates occur every three years. She said the initial price in the fiscal note - $40,000 - was a result of the division's asking the testing company what it would cost to write an exam for the 2000 UMC. She speculated that the testing company could do that now, but that the 1997 exam is probably still available. Number 0797 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the testing process to become a mechanical administrator requires a one-time test, with continuing education to follow. MS. REARDON replied in the affirmative. She added that [a person who lets his/her license] lapse without renewal will have to retake the exam. Number 0879 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES stated his concern over "what the practice is versus what's in statute," and said a lot of communities are currently doing work against the statutes. He offered that there is "a lot of work being done under the ICBO [International Conference of Building Officials], but in our statutes we have a totally different book that we have in law." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the IMC, which is part of the regulations adopted by the DPS, is now the state standard and is also the ICBO standard. He stated, "We are working on another bill to try to resolve this." Number 0960 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if there is "a lot of work" that has been done using a different method than what is in the current statutes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied in the negative and asked if Representative Hayes was referring to work done under the IMC or the UMC. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES replied, "The international." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the IMC has now been adopted by the State of Alaska as the standard. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES responded, "In regulation but not in statute. Isn't that the whole argument of why we have [HB 399]?" Number 1069 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt Amendment 22-LS1461\J.1, Bannister, 3/28/02, which read: Page 2, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 18.56.300(e)(3) is amended to read: (3) "state building code" means (A) for building standards, the standards set out in the version of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the Department of Public Safety under AS 18.70.080, including the provisions of that code applicable to buildings used for residential purposes containing fewer than four dwelling units, notwithstanding the exclusion of those buildings from the Department of Public Safety's jurisdiction made by AS 18.70.080(a)(2); (B) for mechanical standards, the standards set out in the mechanical code [VERSION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE] adopted by the Department of Public Safety under AS 18.70.080, including the provisions of that code applicable to buildings used for residential purposes containing fewer than four dwelling units, notwithstanding the exclusion of those buildings from the Department of Public Safety's jurisdiction made by AS 18.70.080(a)(2); (C) for plumbing standards, the minimum plumbing code adopted for the state under AS 18.60.705; and (D) for electrical standards, the minimum electrical standards prescribed by AS 18.60.580." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that Amendment J.1 would clarify those provisions that relate to AHFC [Alaska Housing Finance Corporation]. Referring to AS 18.56.300(e)(3), he said the amendment would adopt a "generic" mechanical code and delete the specific reference to a "version of the Uniform Mechanical Code." He explained that this would default back to the Department of Public Safety's adoption by regulation. He offered that as a matter of policy he doesn't want to leave [the issue] out there as a regulatory matter. Number 1080 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected for the purpose of discussion. He said this amendment wasn't discussed in the subcommittee; he asked Representative Rokeberg to explain further. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that there are some specific references in the AHFC statute to the UMC. Through adoption of Amendment J.1, the statute reverts to generic language. He explained that if DPS were to change the code adopted, then this would automatically change also, without having to change the statute again. He noted that AHFC had requested this amendment; it wasn't discussed in the subcommittee because he was approached by AHFC after the meeting on this specific matter. Number 1184 CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it seems to make sense based on testimony heard from Mr. Bitney. She said [Amendment J.1] clears up ambiguity in this particular statute, but asked if there are any "loose ends" in other areas of the statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that the primary issue is whether adoption of the building codes should become a legislative issue or should be "bequeathed ... to the departments." He explained that currently the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and DPS are both adopting [regulations] under statutory authority. He said the subcommittee is working on trying to bring that together under a central umbrella. He suggested this is a noncontroversial fix to the statute. Number 1276 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered that the question is whether "we're talking about the status quo ... since September or ... before September" when the UMC was in statute. He said he doesn't like the status quo since September, and he felt the [UMC] should have been enforced until the legislature changed it, and not the state fire marshal. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, but offered that this is a practical situation that was handed to the legislature as "a fait accompli", and he doesn't like that. He explained that [HB 399] does ratify the IMC and not the UMC. He agreed that the legislature needs to retain its authority to select a code. Representative Rokeberg added: What I aim to bring out to this committee is, ... an umbrella agency should have all the codes together and the legislature should stipulate what codes they should be. And the cyclical editions that are adopted should be up to the ... administration. You don't need to come back to the legislature and do the cyclical updates. Number 1422 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if Representative Halcro maintained his objection to Amendment J.1. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded in the negative. CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that there being no further objection, Amendment J.1 was adopted. Number 1440 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 399 [version 22- LS1461\J, Bannister, 3/28/02, as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 399(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|