Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/01/2002 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2002
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 436
"An Act relating to construction, plumbing, mechanical,
electrical, fire safety, and other safety codes adopted by state
agencies and municipalities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 437
"An Act adopting a version of the Uniform Mechanical Code for
the state and providing for adoption of future versions of the
code; and relating to the building code adopted by the state and
to other safety codes."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 399
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF ADMIN REGULATION REVIEW
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/11/02 2204 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/11/02 2204 (H) L&C
03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 436
SHORT TITLE:MECHANICAL CODE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/02 2286 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/02 2286 (H) L&C
02/15/02 2286 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 437
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/02 2286 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/02 2286 (H) L&C
02/15/02 2286 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Chair
Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
399, the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review.
JOHN MANLY, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
436 and HB 437.
MAX MIELKE, Business Manager
UA Local Union 262 Plumbers & Pipefitters
President, Alaska State Pipe and Trade Association
President, Juneau Central Labor Council
723 W 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the IMC is all about
politics.
STEVE SHOWS
19137 Randall Road
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged the legislature to let the
regulations of the State Fire Marshall stand.
GENE RUTLAND, Executive Director
Mechanical Contractors of Alaska
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 399.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Northwest Regional Manager
International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the plumbing and mechanical
industries should develop the plumbing and mechanical codes.
GARY POWELL, Director/State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
5700 E Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background with regard to the
adoption of the IMC.
ROBERT BUCH, Member
UA Local 367
3160 W 71st Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 399.
STEVE MILLER, Member
UA Local 367
610 W 54th
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the difficulties he has with the
International Codes.
KIT DAHLSTROM, Mechanical Administrator
Enstar Natural Gas
PO Box 770725
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Announced his support of the Uniform set of
codes.
ERNIE MISEWICZ, Deputy Fire Marshal
Fairbanks Fire Department
656 7th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted his current opposition to HB 436.
BILL SAGER, Executive Director
Mechanical Contractors Association of Fairbanks
1340 2nd Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 399.
BRET HELMS, Member
UA Local 375
1978 Burgess Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with changing to the
IMC.
DENNIS DALMAN, Mechanical Administrator
PO Box 49
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with changing to the
IMC.
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Department of Revenue
PO Box 101020
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with regard to AHFC's inclusion
in HB 436 and HB 437.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-27, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski and Crawford were present at the call
to order. Representatives Halcro, Meyer, Rokeberg, and Hayes
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 399-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
HB 436-MECHANICAL CODE
HB 437-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that today testimony would be heard on
HB 399, HB 436, and HB 437, which all deal with the mechanical
code.
Number 062
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Chair, Joint Committee on
Administrative Regulation Review, Alaska State Legislature,
testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 399, the Joint
Committee on Administrative Regulation Review (ARR).
Representative McGuire acknowledged that the subject matter of
all three bills are the same. However, she expressed the need
for a philosophical and public policy debate with regard to
whether the Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) or the International
Mechanical Code (IMC) is appropriate for the state.
Representative McGuire specified that the committee substitute
(CS) before the committee strips out the substantive policy
decisions. She expressed her desire to focus on the procedural
issue at hand, which is the separation of powers issue.
Number 088
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 399, Version 22-LS1461\C, Bannister, 2/20/02, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version C was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE began by providing the committee a brief
history of ARR's experience with HB 399. This summer a group of
mechanical contractors brought to Representative McGuire's
attention that there were proposals to change the mechanical
contractor code from the UMC to the IMC. The concerns brought
to the ARR committee mainly dealt with the process with which
this change in code occurred. There was the belief that the
code change was rushed through and there had been no opportunity
to offer testimony with regard to the merits of the codes. At
that point, this past fall, Representative McGuire decided to
hold an ARR meeting on this matter. In attendance at this
meeting were [representatives] from the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), the Division of Occupational Licensing in the
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED). During
this three-and-half hour meeting discussing the proposals by
DPS, ARR clearly expressed concern with the process. There was
specific concern noted with regard to the current statutes that
charge the Division of Occupational Licensing with administering
a test entitled the Uniform Mechanical Code, which is
copyrighted, trademarked, and proprietary in nature.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE specified that her intention in holding
the ARR meeting was to make [DPS] aware of the concerns with
regard to the separation of powers issues. Furthermore, she
said she had wanted to [make clear] that it's the legislature
that establishes policy and the regulations are designed to
implement that policy. She highlighted that she had requested
that DCED [postpone adoption of the regulations] and come meet
[with ARR] in January in order to discuss the merits of both
codes. However, DCED proceeded to adopt regulations that
directly contradict the statute. The only recourse was to hold
an ARR meeting and ask DCED to explain their action.
Representative McGuire said, "I can tell you with every degree
of certainty ... that there was no legitimate explanation that
came out of that meeting." However, she recognized that the
Division of Occupational Licensing was probably placed in an
awkward position because of DPS's broad authority given by the
legislature. In fact, DPS has the ability to adopt whatever
regulations [it deems appropriate]. On the other hand, DCED's
statutory authority and licensing requirements are very clear in
their reference to the UMC. Representative McGuire pointed out
that the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) was
also involved in this and DLWD chose to adopt the newest version
of the UMC, which [was] an option that DCED could've chosen.
Number 187
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE pointed out, "As a legislative body it is
our obligation to retain the power that we have in our branch of
government. It's specifically the purview of the Administrative
Regulatory Review Committee to continue to guard that ... power
very safely." She informed the committee that in 1980 the
supreme court decided that the legislature no longer had the
ability through mere resolution to annul a regulation.
Therefore, the role of ARR was changed significantly. She
submitted that ARR's role was made even more important because
it is the only watchdog to ensure the correct implementation of
the statutes. Representative McGuire stressed, "It is
absolutely our responsibility to repeal these regulations." In
closing Representative McGuire pointed out that the references
to the UMC under the Division of Occupational Licensing are as
follows: AS 08.18.171, which specifies the UMC in regard to the
definition of a mechanical contractor; [AS 08.40.270], which
specifies that applicants will be tested with regard to their
familiarity with the UMC; AS 08.40.490, which is the definitions
section for the entire licensing chapter.
Number 241
CHAIR MURKOWSKI requested that Representative McGuire inform the
committee where things would stand if HB 399 is passed and the
regulations are repealed.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE explained that HB 399 would return the
code to the UMC. In the event of a veto, she said there would
be a veto override.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Representative McGuire had read
anything regarding the heat exchanger provision of the plumbing
code 1867(c)(3).
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee established the policy to delegate
to the degree of adoption of amendments. In other words, when
there is a code revision the appropriate departments would adopt
the relevant periodic revisions to the code in order to
eliminate the need for the legislature [to be involved]. "It's
been the policy here [HL&C] to try to delegate within our
constitutional powers of delegation, but retain, by specifying
in statute, the specific code," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed with the expectation for the
departments to update the codes periodically. However, the
issue here is a substantive policy change between two different
codes. This situation was one in which the effort was to change
the code entirely. She acknowledged that there is a separation
of powers and although there is delegation, the legislature has
to retain the authority. The current statutes delegate
authority and revisions to a specific code.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG highlighted, "Except to the Department
of Public Safety, we have not." He remarked that this problem
may have been created by the legislature itself due to
conflicting statutes.
Number 326
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commented that the most troubling aspect
of this process goes beyond the separation of powers issue. The
concern is that the government is supposed to help people
succeed in furthering their futures, jobs, and vocational
trades. However, when the government is changing licensing
requirements in a potentially arbitrary manner, it is
disconcerting. She reiterated the need for the legislature to
make these policy decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES agreed with Representative Rokeberg that
this problem is as much the legislature's [fault] as it is
anyone else's. Representative Hayes related his belief that the
regulations [by the Division of Occupational Licensing] were
done because the options were few to none; the division was in
between a rock and a hard place. Therefore, he expressed the
need to fix the statutes. Furthermore, Representative Hayes
said that he believes that the administration was merely doing
its job.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO inquired as to Representative McGuire's
take on the motivation for changing the codes.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that she didn't disagree with
Representative Hayes regarding the situation in which the
Division of Occupational Licensing found itself. However, she
did believe that the division had other options in that the
division could've come to the legislature in January to do what
is being done through HB 436 and HB 437. Representative McGuire
expressed her dislike of subverting the statute itself because
of the precedent it establishes. She stressed that the statute
is controlling and the regulation has to follow rather than the
other way around.
Number 379
JOHN MANLY, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 436 and HB
437, Representative Harris. Mr. Manly explained that HB 436
prohibits state agencies and municipalities from adopting safety
codes unless the process the code was developed through was open
to all interested parties. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) endorses those codes which are open to the
greatest number of interested parties during development. House
Bill 436 requires that the ANSI standard be followed in the
adoption of these codes.
MR. MANLY turned to HB 437, which corrects the problem with the
State Fire Marshall's Office adopting the IMC. This bill
stipulates that the 2000 edition of the UMC is the one that is
adopted for use in Alaska. The bill also allows DPS to adopt
subsequent codes when available and when the department
determines those are better suited for the public policy of the
state.
Number 403
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to why both HB 436 and HB 437 were
introduced.
MR. MANLY answered that the bills were introduced separately so
that the issues could move forward separately in case one was
viewed as a bad idea. If both are viewed as [appropriate], then
either bill's title would probably cover the content of both
bills. Therefore, the bills could be combined.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that she was viewing HB 436 as option A
and HB 437 as option B. That is, HB 437 specifically provides
that the UMC is the code to be followed, while option A doesn't
specify use of the UMC and would seem to allow flexibility to go
outside the UMC.
MR. MANLY, in reference to HB 436, agreed that it would seem to
allow flexibility to go outside the UMC as long as the code
being considered met the ANSI standards. He pointed out that
the IMC is problematic because it hasn't obtained the ANSI seal
of approval.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised that if the IMC eventually met the ANSI
standards, [HB 436] would allow the flexibility to [utilize] the
IMC.
MR. MANLY agreed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to the preference of the sponsor.
MR. MANLY answered that the sponsor would prefer the UMC. In
regard to the sponsor's preference between HB 436 and HB 437,
Mr. Manly indicated that the sponsor would prefer HB 437.
Number 435
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG returned to HB 436 and pointed out that
it basically describes the UMC and the International Association
of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) brochure regarding
how the code is put together. Representative Rokeberg asked if
there is currently a code that is the equivalent of the UMC that
would meet the [ANSI] standards.
MR. MANLY related his understanding that there is no such
equivalent code. He noted that the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) is in the process of developing a building
code.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that Mr. Manly's answer
illustrates the point that there is a very competitive situation
between two different bodies. He noted the terrible situation
in California with regard to the codes. He also noted the lack
of a body of codes.
MR. MANLY mentioned that there is a Uniform Building Code (UBC)
and an International Building Code (IBC). Mr. Manly agreed with
Representative Rokeberg that those are older codes.
Number 467
MAX MIELKE, Business Manager, UA Local Union 262 Plumbers &
Pipefitters; President, Alaska State Pipe and Trade Association;
President, Juneau Central Labor Council; provided the following
testimony:
Right here in Southeast Alaska I represent 100 plus
members who install or repair mechanical systems on a
daily basis under 13 different signatory contractors
under the mechanical administrator license. All of
our mechanical contractors are licensed under the
Uniform Mechanical Code and Uniform Plumbing Code,
which mesh with each other .... I would also like to
point out that my 100 plus journeymen and apprentices
go through extensive training on and off the job site
under the Uniform Mechanical Code and the Uniform
Plumbing Code. The International Mechanical Code is
foreign to us and we are not licensed under this code.
There've been accusations made that this is strictly a
union issue. I would like to make myself clear that
this is not true. All non-union mechanical
contractors that I have spoken with on this issue feel
the same way we do .... Under the International
Mechanical Code committee voting structure, the
mechanical contractors and mechanics who install or
repair the systems do not have a vote on this
International Mechanical Code committee. With the
Uniform Mechanical Code, all involved on the
committees have votes. You have to have a balanced
committee and one that is not dominated by ... any one
organization .... The people that know these
mechanical systems inside and out are the contractors
and mechanics who install and repair them. They have
to have a vote. Under the International Mechanical
Code committee they will not have a vote. Lastly, I
would like to say that we think the International
Mechanical Code is all about politics and only
addresses minimum safety standards for the safety and
welfare of all Alaskans.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI welcomed those with written testimony to submit
it to the committee to become part of the record.
Number 494
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Mielke could define
mechanical administrator.
MR. MIELKE explained that he has members who hold mechanical
administrators license and others who are mechanical
contractors. Everyone is licensed under the state plumbing
license with a certificate of fitness. In further response to
Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Mielke confirmed that [a mechanical
administrator] could be a journeyman and union member without
being licensed. However, mechanical contractors have to be
licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that a licensed mechanical
administrator would be one who has the background and experience
to act as a contractor.
MR. MIELKE agreed. In response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr.
Mielke informed the committee that it takes 10,000 hours of
continuous on and off the job training and/or five years of job
training. Each apprentice has to attend 265 hours of school.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if an individual holding a
mechanical engineering degree who passed the examination could
become a mechanical administrator without being a journeyman.
MR. MIELKE related his belief that the individual would have to
acquire the experience in the field. He said he couldn't answer
that question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG identified the training aspect as the
key issue when there are transitions.
Number 525
STEVE SHOWS specified that he is testifying as an individual,
although he noted that he has been an inspector in Alaska for
federal, state, and local government for 23 years. Mr. Shows
also noted that he is certified by every code being discussed
today. Mr. Shows encouraged the legislature to let the
regulations of the State Fire Marshall stand. He pointed out
that the legislature appropriated $100,000 for the State Fire
Marshall to bring expert testimony in order to adopt codes that
[secure] the health and safety of Alaskans. That expert
testimony was [heard] and led to the codes that were adopted,
the IMC, which are coordinated and dovetail to work together.
With regard to licensing and testing, Mr. Shows informed the
committee that he is certified in both codes [the UMC and the
IMC]. He said that these codes aren't markedly different. He
likened the difference between the codes to the difference
between the 1997 UMC and the 2000 UMC.
MR. SHOWS turned to HB 437, and said that it really speaks to
why we're here today, which is restraint of trade. "When we try
to get an unfair advantage through the legislative or code
writing policy rather than take the health and safety of the
population as our prime focus, that's when I think we don't all
work together pulling the same wagon," he said. Mr. Shows
informed the committee that the UMC is one of four mechanical
codes in the country. About ten years ago, this country decided
to pool its resources such that a product approved in Florida
would be acceptable in Alaska. Everyone came together and
concessions were made in order to determine the least
restrictive and least costly requirement to have the built
environment safe for the people of this country. "The
International codes are laudable. Unfortunately, IAPMO and NFPA
decided we're taking our ball and going home; we don't like it,"
he explained. Mr. Shows read a phrase from the UMC which
specifies that safety is the goal. He said that IAPMO's and
NFPA's failure to live up to "that promise" is the reason [for
the current situation]. The voting practices of [IAPMO and
NFPA] are different than that of the International Codes. Mr.
Shows explained that within the ANSI codes, those who are
manufacturers of a product or those who represent an organized
labor [group] who would benefit from more time spent on a job
for a product are given a vote in the process. However, in the
International Code adoption process those who are objective and
have no financial interest in the outcome of the vote but do
have a governmental right and duty to regulate are the ones who
vote.
MR. SHOWS addressed how this all impacts Alaskans. He said that
at some point there will be a national code and thus it's a
matter of "how much we stumble our toes along the way." Mr.
Shows informed the committee that through the Alaska State
Legislature, IAPMO advocated the 1979 Uniform Plumbing Code for
ten years after IAPMO's own code specified that plastic pipe was
recognized as a standard, safe, and durable product. That
action cost the people of Alaska tens of millions of dollars and
caused some municipalities to bring civil suit in the state. He
characterized the situation as one which clearly financially
benefited certain people rather than being in the [best interest
of the state]. In conclusion, Mr. Shows pointed out that times
are changing and there is the opportunity to adopt codes that
guarantee public safety with no special treatment for certain
groups.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES inquired as to the number of states that
have adopted the [International Codes] imposed by Alaska's State
Fire Marshall.
MR. SHOWS said that he didn't have an exact number. He pointed
out that the 2000 edition of the [International Codes] is in its
first cycle of availability for adoption. Although he said he
didn't have an answer, he indicated that there is momentum
toward a national consensus.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to Mr. Shows' perspective as an
inspector.
TAPE 02-27, SIDE B
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued by pointing out that the impression
has been given that it'll be difficult to go between the codes,
and furthermore there is the issue of the training.
MR. SHOWS related his belief that folks are scared. He
reiterated that the two codes aren't different. He also
reiterated that this is really about approval of materials and
time spent on the job. Many new construction projects get their
building built quicker and faster, and to that there is
resistance.
Number 0583
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG returned to Mr. Shows' reference to the
tens of millions of dollars spent in the Fairbanks' suit against
the UPC regarding the use of plastic piping. He inquired as to
why that situation happened.
MR. SHOWS explained that the 1979 UPC had a provision in the
materials section limiting plastic drain pipes to a two-story
residential building. Every other structure was required to use
cast iron or copper or some other type of drainage pipe, which
he estimated probably added 2-3 percent to the cost of the total
project. However, cities adopted new editions of the UPC, which
allowed plastic pipe. The situation resulted in state
inspectors coming by and saying that they had received a call
from the union who wanted [the use of plastic pipes] to stop.
[The City of] Fairbanks refused to stop [using plastic pipes]
and thus went to court because the authority having jurisdiction
[the city] has the right to look at materials that are the
equivalent in regard to safety, performance, and durability.
Therefore, if there are two approved materials, the question is
whether one code is less stringent than the other. The court
ruled that plastic is a safe and durable material.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his understanding that such
could be overcome by local adoptions, which are amendments to
the code adopted by the local authority.
MR. SHOWS specified that state statute supercedes local
ordinance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if [in the Fairbanks situation]
the problem was that the specifications were stipulated in the
UPC and thus the [local authority] couldn't make a distinction.
MR. SHOWS pointed out that the UPC stated that plastic pipe is
not approved except in specific locations, but it also
specified, "Alternate methods and materials acceptable to the
authority having jurisdiction based on component testing and
documentation can be approved." Although that allowed for a
local amendment, the state, the Department of Labor, took
exception to it.
Number 552
GENE RUTLAND, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors of
Alaska (MCA), provided the following testimony:
In any given year MCA member businesses employee over
1,000 workers on job sites throughout Alaska. Many of
these employees belong to unions .... We are the
businesses and workers who install plumbing, heating,
ventilating, air conditioning systems in buildings
throughout Alaska. We are the construction
professionals that help build Alaska. They're over
500 mechanical contractors and mechanical
administrators in Alaska, licensed by the Division of
Occupational Licensing. We need your help in sorting
out how we work in Alaska. Various laws in Alaska
call for the use of building and life safety codes.
The Department of Labor is required by law to use the
Uniform Plumbing Code and other uniform codes. The
Alaska State Housing Authority is required to use the
Uniform Mechanical Code. Existing codes call for the
Division of Occupational Licensing to test and license
mechanical administrators and mechanical contractors
according to the Uniform Mechanical Code. These
construction professionals are required to certify
that each project they supervise was installed per the
Uniform Mechanical Code. The Department of Commerce &
Economic Development issues forms that must be
executed by a responsible mechanical administrator for
each commercial project.
Alaska law says the Uniform Mechanical Code. We
believe that the Department of Public Safety, in order
to have conducted this reg project of theirs in a
responsible manner, should've came to the legislature
and sought authority to adopt a new mechanical code.
The current administration adopted regulations calling
for the use of an unproven International Mechanical
Code. MCA and other organizations believe that the
Uniform Mechanical Code has well served our state for
decades.
Mechanical contractors all over Alaska want to know
how the Division of Occupational Licensing can ignore
the laws requiring testing and education according to
the Uniform Mechanical Code. To us the issue is
simple. How can an administrative agency ignore the
law and adopt a new code through regulations. Since
these International Codes are new codes, published by
a new building code group, we ask will they even be
around in five or ten years from now. MCA's member
businesses are trying to build Alaska and make a
living. I have members who are confused and uncertain
about which mechanical code really is legal. Most of
us believe laws should be given greater emphasis than
regulations. We certainly want to comply with the
law, but we're tired of being run over by a small
group of bureaucrats who have fallen in love with a
code they've created without our input. In fact, we
were told during the regulation process, at one of our
meetings, we were told by a representative from the
Department of Public Safety that there was no use for
us to make comments saying that we didn't like the
International Mechanical Code because its adoption was
a done deal. We don't think that that's the way
regulation projects should be handled. We need to
take a hard look at what's going on here, and help
restore order.
Based upon what I've learned, here is what I think you
should do. Adopt the committee substitute for HB 399,
voiding the regulations improperly adopted by the
Division of Occupational Licensing allowing use of the
International Code with the law [that] obviously
states the Uniform Mechanical Code must be used. ...
The people who really use the mechanical code are the
mechanical contractors and the mechanical
administrators .... Every mechanical set of plans for
a structure that comes out from a mechanical
professional's office has, in the general conditions
of the specifications, a phrase that goes something
like this: "These drawings are diagrammatic in
nature. They are not intended to show all the details
and offsets required to install. It is the
responsibility of the contractor to install a
workmanship, workable system in accordance with all
applicable codes and standards." We are the ones that
are ultimately responsible for conforming to codes.
We believe that we should have a voice in which code
is going to be used.
Number 491
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER surmised then that Mr. Rutland isn't
necessarily opposed to the International Codes but rather [MCA]
is opposed to not being included in the process. He asked if
that is a correct assessment. He also asked if Mr. Rutland
would agree [with Mr. Shows] that there isn't much difference
between the Uniform Codes and the International Codes.
MR. RUTLAND agreed that there probably isn't much difference
between the two codes, and therefore he wondered why the
International Mechanical Code is being adopted. In regard to
opposition to the code, Mr. Rutland agreed that it's fairly
accurate to say that [MCA] isn't opposed to the International
Codes but rather is opposed to the process. Mr. Rutland
reiterated earlier testimony regarding the fact that mechanical
administrators licensed under these codes have to have five plus
years of experience using these codes, pass an examination based
on the codes, and perform eight hours of continuing education
each code cycle. Therefore, these professionals have the
Uniform Mechanical Code committed to memory.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented that although he isn't sure why
there [would be the need] to go the International Codes if there
isn't much difference between it and the Uniform Codes, 37
states have adopted the International Code. Many of those
states have given local governments the option of going to the
International Code.
MR. RUTLAND informed the committee that the International Code
is published by a consortium of three building officials,
national organizations, who have formed the International Code
Commission. He indicated that most of the building officials in
the state are members of the International Conference of
Building Officials (ICBO), which published the 1997 edition of
the [Uniform Building Code]. Therefore, he said he didn't
understand how this same group could, in three years, put forth
a code that they claim is vastly superior. With regard to the
family of codes, Mr. Rutland pointed out that the International
Code consists of 11 [codes]. It is recommended that the family
of codes be adopted because they are all interrelated. However,
Alaska has only adopted three of the family.
MR. RUTLAND, in further response to Representative Meyer, said
that the normal code cycle is every three years. Most of the
code changes are merely a 1-2 percent change in the content of
the code. A 5 percent change in content would be a huge change.
Therefore, most changes require very little work to bring a
person up to speed. Mr. Rutland viewed the change to the
International Code as a huge change that is more than even a 5
percent change.
Number 434
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD inquired as to the disruption Mr.
Rutland expected in changing to the International Code as
opposed to the update.
MR. RUTLAND said that first the code would need to be thoroughly
read and studied. He estimated that it would probably require
80 hours to become familiar with the International Code [at the
same level as the Uniform Codes]. He predicted that there would
be much reference to the code [book] when on the job.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related that he would guess the
journeymen would be less efficient on the job if they have to
continually reference the code book.
MR. RUTLAND agreed, and echoed earlier testimony that many of
these mechanical administrators, who, by statute, are required
to personally supervise every job, are superintendent types who
supervise the work. Therefore, they, too, would have to be
retrained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG highlighted the notion that the
International Code will bring greater flexibility and lower
construction costs. Representative Rokeberg referred to
flexible tubing and asked if it was recently [approved] by the
UPC.
MR. RUTLAND replied yes. He, then, stressed that he is present
to speak in regard to the UMC.
Number 400
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the basic principles of [the
mechanical contractor/administrator's] craft apply even if a new
code is adopted.
MR. RUTLAND answered, "If the system is going to work, I would
say ... yes that would be true because the laws of physics don't
change."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that if the specifications as
to how high from the floor a water heater would be placed isn't
on the specifications, then the architect or mechanical engineer
would be contacted.
MR. RUTLAND said there isn't enough time to do that. The
[mechanical contractor/administrator] need to know. In response
to Chair Murkowski, he said that there are currently 508
registered mechanical administrators and there are about 240
mechanical contractors licensed in the state.
Number 356
DWIGHT PERKINS, Northwest Regional Manager, International
Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials, noted that he
would leave the committee with some handouts. With regard to
earlier testimony that NFPA and IAPMO took their ball and went
home, Mr. Perkins said that isn't what happened. He turned to
the claim that 37 states have adopted the International Code.
He explained that there may be 37 states that have adopted
portions of the family of International Codes, but only three
states have adopted the entire family of International Codes.
MR. PERKINS provided the following testimony:
The processes and procedures under which the two codes
are developed are distinctly different and will have a
serious impact upon everybody in the State of Alaska.
... the Uniform Plumbing Code and the Uniform
Mechanical Code are being developed utilizing the
American National Standards Institute, ANSI ...,
requirements .... ANSI mandates that the process be
totally open giving everyone interested ... a voice
and a vote. Just like in the American democracy, the
development and update of the process, the UPC and UMC
are literally open to participation by everyone in the
state of Alaska. In maintaining the IMC ... and all
their other codes, the International Code Council
(ICC) uses a method they call governmental consensus.
This is simply a consensus of governmental employees
and building officials. Other than in public hearings
and some committee activity by invitation only, only
government employees and building officials may vote
on the adoption process. The rest of the industry,
all the citizens, including the elected
representatives, are shut out of the process. The ICC
codes, including their mechanical code, do not
replicate any of the three building official
organizations prior codes. Instead, they created a
concept of performance codes .... These [performance
codes] offer ... broad guidelines and criteria which
they leave to the design community to determine how to
meet. Standards from other books and documents are
referenced for the designer to determine whether or
not they should be used. It is important to note that
most contractors and trades people who serve the
public do not have designers on staff. This will
create repeated and unfortunate conflicts between
enforcement inspectors and installers, [and] service
repair technicians in the interpretations and
application and compliance.
Compatibility of codes is also often raised as an
issue. Obviously it is important that all codes and
standards are compatible, but it is not an issue.
Ever since codes were written, they have had to be
harmonized to work together. The Uniform Mechanical
Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code are turn-key ...
codes that will not be in conflict with any building
code the state adopts. Both national model code
groups are working on their own sets of codes. This
is a set of codes to cover all structures and their
maintenance, already harmonized and ready for the
adoption as a package. Currently, the National Fire
Protection Association is developing their building
code, which will complete the IAPMO and NFPA family of
true consensus code set. The ICC ... is finalizing
their family, which currently includes NFPA National
Electrical Code upon which they utilize the
harmonization process. The IAPMO Uniform Plumbing
Code and Mechanical Code family relationship with all
the NFPA codes is important for your consideration due
to the fact that the NFPA and IAPMO codes all remain
occupancy based.
MR. PERKINS closed with the following:
Why should we move away from ... industry developed
time-tested codes and standards that are already
adopted widely throughout the United States and in
other countries? And why should we ignore all the
expertise and experience the industry brings to the
code development? The plumbing and mechanical
industries should develop the plumbing and mechanical
codes.
Number 287
MR. PERKINS turned to Representative Rokeberg's comments
regarding the latitude of the departments. He recalled when
Representative Rokeberg was chair of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee when it discussed allowing
departments to adopt the latest version of codes. However, a
specific code was named. In DPS's statutory authority it
specifies that the department will adopt regulations to protect
people from fire, explosion, and panic. Mr. Perkins related his
belief that there was a rush to adopt the International Codes in
the state. However, as mentioned earlier, there are 11 code
books not to mention the other standards that are necessary. He
pointed out that [DPS] had to make over 100 changes in the
regulations in order to reference the UPC and the National
Electrical Code. He noted that the contractors requested that
DPS replace references to the IMC in the International Building
Code with the 2000 edition of the UMC. The department refused
on the basis that the mechanical code wouldn't harmonize with
such a change. Mr. Perkins disagreed and said that these are
stand-alone codes. Additionally, Mr. Perkins pointed out that
the regulations specify that the regulators must review the cost
to the private individual. In this instance, there is no cost
analysis of the impact on the apprenticeship training schools
and the mechanical contractors.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed that the codes have been
stipulated in statute. However, there was no other choice at
the time because the competing codes were regional. Although at
one time the ICBO and IAPMO coordinated the codes, they split.
Therefore, Alaska's statutes are a mess and need to be
addressed.
MR. PERKINS suggested the need [for the legislature] to review
both model codes and determine which one should be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there isn't a
[building] code to review from IAPMO for the 2000 cycle. He
viewed that as part of the problem.
MR. PERKINS reiterated earlier testimony that code cycles are
every three years and thus the next code cycle is nine months
away. He pointed out that a code is being adopted that is
technically nine months from being reviewed again.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG characterized that as traditional.
However, he expressed concern that there are projects under way
in the state that are being designed under a specific code.
Number 197
GARY POWELL, Director/State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire
Prevention, Department of Public Safety, testified via
teleconference. He announced that he was the one who started
this. Mr. Powell explained that the project began in October
1999 when [the division] briefed the Office of Management &
Budget (OMB) regarding the need to adopt new codes. Due to the
need for a more extensive review of the codes, an increment was
included in the budget. That increment was approved, the
funding was received, and the project began. He noted that
there were discussions with various interested parties such as
the local jurisdictions and trades people. From the beginning,
the project was done on as widespread a basis as possible. A
code adoption coordinator and code consultant were hired. The
code consultant has worked on both the code consulting and
enforcement side for various design professionals. With regard
to earlier remarks that there was a rush with this process, Mr.
Powell didn't think [beginning in 1999] constituted a rush. In
fact, the Division of Occupational Licensing was contacted in
September 2000 and informed that [DPS] intended to pursue
adoption of the International Code set for the building, fire,
and mechanical codes. In October 2000 the DLWD was contacted
and made aware of the aforementioned efforts and people from
DLWD sat in on the meetings as the foundation document was
created. The Department of Law worked with DPS throughout the
entire process. In December 2000 DPS met with Linda Winters,
who was thought to be the representative for [MCA], was
contacted and sent a complete packet of information. However,
in May 2000 DPS discovered that Mr. Rutland was representing at
least a portion of MCA. Therefore, conversations were initiated
with Mr. Rutland. Furthermore, there was a mail out of the
packet to over 700 mechanical contractors and administrators.
He noted that due to a typographical error in one of the
announcements, [DPS] had to do a second open comment period.
There was comment by one of the members of the Joint Committee
on Administrative Regulation Review staff that [the Division of
Fire Prevention, DPS] did a great job, although that sentiment
seems to have changed.
MR. POWELL mentioned that there have been some misleading
comments regarding the adoption process. He noted that he has
been involved in NFPA's ANSI-approved process and the
International Code process. Of the two, the [International Code
Council (ICC)] process produces a much better result because it
isn't controlled by special interest groups, which was the case
with NFPA's process last May in Anaheim, California where some
special interest standards were pushed through. A fire chief
that wanted to speak on the issue was "shouted down" and debate
was cut off. It wasn't the ANSI process. He mentioned that
those special interest standards will impact Alaska.
MR. POWELL recalled testimony that there were over 100
amendments to the regulations. Although that is true, the
[amendments] were to defer the areas over which DLWD
traditionally has authority, which are the plumbing and
electrical codes. The model code that [DPS] adopted made
numerous references to the plumbing and electrical code other
than the Uniform Code, and therefore those were changed to defer
[to DLWD]. These aren't technical changes but rather changes to
clarify that DPS wasn't attempting to adopt a plumbing or
electrical code on behalf of DLWD. Mr. Powell acknowledged that
2003 is the next code cycle, and pointed out that usually [DPS]
is a year or two behind the publishing of the code. He noted
the absurdity in thinking that the code could be adopted in nine
months.
Number 067
CHAIR MURKOWSKI highlighted the question regarding why there is
a need to change to the International Code if the Uniform Code
has been working Okay and the differences between it and the
International Code are minimal.
MR. POWELL answered that the primary reason is that there is no
other building code available. Although the easy solution would
be to stay with the 1997 codes, it wouldn't be the correct
choice. "I think I have an obligation, under statute, to adopt
the best and most current codes available," Mr. Powell said.
Therefore, there was the need to adopt the International
Building Code, the only building code available. The next step
for his office would then be to adopt the companion fire and
mechanical codes. Only the three codes within the International
Codes would be adopted because those are the only areas over
which DPS has authority. With regard to the minimal difference
between the two codes, Mr. Powell agreed with that assessment.
"I would say if there's not much difference, then let's get one
that works with the building code, and that's certainly the
International Mechanical [Code]," he remarked.
Number 028
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled that the committee adopted CSHB
399, which would annul DPS's regulations. The testimony stated
that such action would return to the prior set of codes. He
asked if that would be Mr. Powell's interpretation.
MR. POWELL specified that he didn't have the CS before him.
However, he said he believes that it only annuls the Division of
Occupational Licensing's regulations. If that is the case, then
that would place [DPS] back at the point just after September
15th. Therefore, he surmised that the International Mechanical
Code would still be adopted, although the mechanical
administrators would be tested according to their knowledge on
the Uniform Mechanical Code.
TAPE 02-28, SIDE A
MR. POWELL, in further response to Representative Rokeberg,
acknowledged that [DPS] is currently in court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that due to the promulgation of
the regulations by DPS, the design community is using those
International Codes for design.
MR. POWELL answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the scope and dollar
volume of projects that would be impacted were the legislature
to repeal the IMC and other International Codes.
MR. POWELL specified that currently [in the State Fire Marshal's
Office] there are over 130 projects submitted under the
International Code that haven't been approved. The total value
of those projects is about $61 million. He noted that those
figures don't include the deferred jurisdiction for which he
estimated there are nine jurisdictions that perform their own
enforcement. Although he didn't have their records, he did
mention that there are a number of large projects in most of
those jurisdictions. In further response to Representative
Rokeberg, Mr. Powell recalled that some of those jurisdictions
have adopted parts of the International Code. With regard to
the IMC, he knew one jurisdiction had adopted it, although the
majority of the jurisdictions are in the process [of adoption].
Four of the jurisdictions are at the point of recommending
adoption, which is the point at which Anchorage stands. With
regard to what Anchorage is doing during [this transition], Mr.
Powell deferred to Anchorage.
Number 063
ROBERT BUCH, Member, UA Local 367, testified via teleconference.
He informed the committee that he has 19 years experience as a
certified journeyman in the plumbing and service industry. Mr.
Buch announced his support of HB 399. Mr. Buch noted that he
has followed this issue from its onset. He said that the
premise behind the introduction of the International Codes was
that it was an international code and would be the accepted
standard throughout the United States. However, the
International body of codes uses manufacturers specifications as
guidelines for installation and materials requirements. The
institutions associated with testing and approval such as ANSI,
and IAPMO, to name only a few, are referred to in the "MSC" with
terms such as "conform to," "in accordance with," and "shall
comply with." There are 144 different references to standards,
which include over 40 publications ranging from $40-$45 each.
The other 50 associations have publications of their own, he
noted. Mr. Bush highlighted that this process came about
through local endorsement. He turned to the questions regarding
whether there's any significant difference in the codes and why
there should be a change. However, he specified that the
questions should actually address who stands to gain and lose by
these changes. "I think the real issues here are not the codes
themselves but what they deal with and how they deal with them,"
he said.
MR. BUCH informed the committee that experienced, certified
journeymen [offered] to be part of these committees, but were
ignored. Mr. Buch related his belief that there has been an
agenda to force implementation of the International body of
codes. In summary, Mr. Buch said:
They are not an International body of codes, they are
accepted only in some states in the United States.
They are not recognized by ANSI .... It seems that
the complication brought on by these processes that
we're facing has muddied the waters and really changed
the issues of what we're all trying to do here. We
have had workable codes that everybody has been able
to operate off of. We have testing institutes, ...
facilities in this state that we've abided by. The
questions remain: who stands to gain; who stands to
lose?
Number 129
STEVE MILLER, Member, UA Local 367, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Miller informed the committee that he is an
instructor for [UA Local 367]. He mentioned that he teaches
approximately 200 people a year in code updates. After studying
both codes for the last eight months, Mr. Miller remarked on the
difficulty he will have in teaching the International Codes
because he will have to reference numerous books. On the other
hand, the UMC and the UPC are fairly straightforward and easy to
follow. In order to implement the IMC, the International Fuel
Gas Code (IFGC) must be utilized in order to have a full
document for the IMC.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI related her understanding from Mr. Miller that
if the IMC is adopted, at least one other code in the family
would have to be adopted by necessity.
MR. MILLER replied yes. He explained that the IMC merely
addresses fuel gas and the other code has to be adopted in order
to have the natural gas standards.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if training for the IMC is taking that
much longer than training for the UMC, or can it be attributed
to the learning curve.
MR. MILLER indicated that training takes quite a bit longer for
the IMC. He informed the committee that he spoke with a
gentleman from the International Codes who told him to teach
from the UMC when teaching the IMC.
Number 170
KIT DAHLSTROM, Mechanical Administrator, Enstar Natural Gas,
testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he
has 24 service technicians for which he is responsible for
training and [review of] their work in the field. "We live by
the code," he said. Since September 15th it has been difficult
because the change necessitates carrying the International and
Uniform code books in order to perform the work. Mr. Dahlstrom
said, "We're in favor of the Uniform set of code books." He
said that once the process was started, the adoption of the [the
International Codes] seemed to be a done deal. Mr. Dahlstrom
reiterated that the IMC necessitates the adoption of the IFGC,
although [the IFGC] places [the IMC] in conflict with the UPC.
Therefore, there are many areas of the state in which no code
has jurisdiction.
Number 221
ERNIE MISEWICZ, Deputy Fire Marshal, Fairbanks Fire Department,
testified via teleconference representing the City of Fairbanks.
Mr. Misewicz informed the committee that he has been involved
with the code review process locally and has worked with the
state fire marshal's office. The goal was to bring state and
local codes together. He noted that [in Fairbanks] there are
contractors and designers who work inside and outside the city.
At the time this building code process started [Fairbanks] was
under the 1994 building code and had contemplated going to the
1997 building code, but decided it would be more advantageous to
go with the 2000 building code. However, at the time the only
building code available was the IBC. In reviewing the
integration of the codes, the International family of codes was
reviewed. He explained that although his primary field is the
fire code, he works with the building code and mechanical
[code]. Therefore, the desire was to have a code that
complimented [the other codes]. With regard to the mention of
changes, Mr. Misewicz said that he can look back over his 28
years in the field and see significant code and training
changes. Changes have occurred to keep pace with technology and
the needs of the community, which is what is happening now. Mr.
Misewicz said, "There are probably other codes out there that
are equal to what we're trying to do, but by going over and
limiting one specific code without referencing other nationally
recognized standards, I think we're doing a disservice to the
community, the people that we serve, designers, and architects
...." Although he said that "we" are willing to review other
codes, he didn't see the need to be limited to one specific
title or code.
Number 260
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if Mr. Misewicz would support HB 436.
MR. MISEWICZ pointed out the problem with that is that when the
review process for building codes began, there were no building
codes that met the ANSI standards. Although he knew that there
are codes being developed to meet the ANSI standards, he said he
didn't know of any such codes right now. Therefore, HB 436
would implement a standard that couldn't be met and thus Mr.
Misewicz said that he is opposed to HB 436 at the moment.
Number 281
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO requested that Mr. Misewicz provide a
practical example of the difference in the codes.
MR. MISEWICZ said that he couldn't provide such an example
without having the codes to reference. He pointed out, however,
that the fire code will provide requirements for fire protection
and thus specifies things that need to meet the requirements in
the mechanical code. Because all the companion codes [of the
International family of codes] haven't been adopted, codes that
are in local city ordinance that reference the Uniform
Mechanical Code have to be referenced.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related his understanding that both
Fairbanks and Anchorage building departments like the IMC
because it's good for the public and is affordable. Therefore,
he surmised there must be a difference between the two codes,
which Representative Halcro said he is trying to understand in
practical terms.
MR. MISEWICZ said the code includes the latitude to allow new
and improved things, which is where the local jurisdiction comes
into play if the local jurisdiction can provide information that
something will meet the intent of the code. Mr. Misewicz
explained that he is reviewing the flexibility to allow other
nationally recognized standards so that there can be the
latitude to meet the intent of changing technology as well as
dealing with the public.
Number 331
BILL SAGER, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors
Association of Fairbanks, testified via teleconference. Mr.
Sager said that the committee can't imagine the frustration this
has created from the association's members, who are business
owners. Many of the members have spent many years operating
their businesses under the UMC, and bidding jobs based on their
familiarity with the UMC. He specified that the UMC is
comprehensive and easy to follow and apply. The UMC is proven
and the product of an open, fair, and balanced adoption process,
which includes government officials and industry. Mr. Sager
specified that if the change to the IMC is necessary, then it
should be done through law not regulation. Furthermore, there
should be an orderly transition period during which there should
be education and training, which will take time and money. Mr.
Sager noted that mechanical contractors are willing to learn new
methods that benefit the customer and the public. However, it
isn't obvious how the IMC makes construction better, safer, or
cheaper. "Changing codes via regulations ignores the law we've
come to know for decades," he remarked. Until this situation is
sorted out, Mr. Sager recommended following the law and passing
HB 399.
Number 366
BRET HELMS, Member, UA Local 375, testified via teleconference.
He informed the committee that he is an instructor for UA Local
375. He referred to a letter addressed to Mr. Ross Fosberg,
dated May 29[, 2001], which Chair Murkowski said the committee
members had. Mr. Helms turned to his own comments and informed
the committee that Local 375 has trained hundreds of plumbers
and pipefitters under the Uniform Code. Therefore, training to
the IMC could be costly and time-consuming. The UMC is a more
descriptive and understandable code in comparison to the IMC.
He questioned why there should be the change to the IMC.
Number 390
DENNIS DALMAN, Mechanical Administrator, informed the committee
that he has 40 years of education under a code that has
progressed such that it has become a national code, which allows
Mr. Dalman to work in 45 states and know what he is doing. "It
appears to me that the [acceptance] of a different code for
these purposes kind of lowers the bar a little bit and allows
money to shift around somewhat," Mr. Dalman said. In other
words, a less stringent installation and the introduction of
alternate products allow lower skill levels, less pay for those
installing [the products] and thus a cheaper job that he said
would require more maintenance. Mr. Dalman said, "We're seeking
a standard." He discussed the difficulties with continuing
education under the adoption of the IMC. "We've already got a
system that can be adjusted by regulation - that's been
demonstrated - so what issues are there," he questioned. Mr.
Dalman stated that there are differences between the code such
as the [fact] that some things work in warm weather and some
don't, which the UMC defines [in one book]. He turned to the
bidding platform and questioned how it will work when one
project chooses certain products while another person chooses
"copy cat" products. Such a situation doesn't protect the
consumer nor does it provide a fair business platform.
Number 435
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), Department of Revenue, began by noting that
the committee should have written statements from AHFC. In
terms of HB 436, Mr. Bitney expressed his hope that the intent
of this bill is to cover construction codes. The only
code/standard that AHFC adopts are in relation to the energy
efficiency standards that state law requires AHFC establish.
The standards that AHFC establishes are, in some cases,
different than national standards for energy efficiency. He
commented that AHFC feels that its standards are much more
appropriate for the climate and diversity in the state. The
bill seems to be drafted specifically to construction codes,
which AHFC doesn't adopt. He explained that AHFC's statutes are
tied to other agencies for all the construction, plumbing, et
cetera. Although HB 436 doesn't speak to energy efficiency in
the definition section, AHFC is specifically included under the
definition of a state agency. Therefore, the bill as a whole
would appear to take AHFC's energy efficiency standards and
evaluate them against ANSI, which AHFC doesn't believe to be
[appropriate]. With regard to HB 437, AHFC again seems to be
along for the ride. Mr. Bitney expressed the hope that the
construction codes, which are required for AHFC to purchase a
home's mortgage, mirror the state's code. Mr. Bitney likened
AHFC's situation to that of the Division of Occupational
Licensing in that the hope would be to conform to the policy
established as the state standard.
Number 464
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referenced Mr. Fauske's letter dated
February 25, 2002. He asked if the Building Energy Efficiency
Standard (BEES) is a standard that was developed in Alaska by
AHFC.
MR. BITNEY replied yes. He explained that AHFC used the state
standard "ASHRAY" (ph), which he believes is under ANSI.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that AHFC has reviewed the
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), but prefers the
BEES.
MR. BITNEY answered yes, and pointed out that state statute
allows AHFC to have different standards for different regions of
the state, as well as give consideration to the cost related to
fuel installation and materials.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that he and Mr. Bitney have
been working on a bill for home inspection for three years. The
bill includes ICBO-certified home inspectors who he understands
to be affiliated with the International [Codes] group.
MR. BITNEY confirmed Representative Rokeberg's understanding.
Number 481
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that those not available on March 15th
[when these bills will be heard again] are welcome to forward
written testimony to the committee.
[HB 399, HB 436, and HB 437 were held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|