Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/30/1994 10:12 AM Senate RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought CSSSHB 249(STA) am (ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL L TRADESPERSONS) before the committee as the next order of business. He noted there was a draft Rules SCS before the committee for its consideration. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, prime sponsor of HB 249, explained the legislation was introduced as a result of problems with the electrical administrator's board and some of the activities and functions of the administrators. The legislation was originally drafted changing the licensing from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Labor. However, during the interim there was extensive discussion and it was decided it would be best to maintain the licensing in the Department of Commerce. Also, there was strong feeling that the board should be abolished. The Rules SCS puts the licensing and enforcement authority into the Department of Commerce, and it also abolishes the Board of Electrical & Mechanical Administrators and gives the Department of Commerce the authority to assume the functions of the board. He added that is why the bill went from three pages to fifteen pages. SENATOR JACKO asked why the fine was increased from $300 to $5,000. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded that the original language had a $300 fine or imprisonment of not more than 60 days, or both. It was desired to remove the imprisonment section and make the fine up to $5,000 because there are varying degrees of violations that can occur in this industry. SENATOR RIEGER expressed concern with the language relating to a misdemeanor, specifically "a violation of minimal electrical standard", stating he thinks it is going a bit too far. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the language relates to the functions of an electrical administrator or a mechanical administrator. It relates to construction activities and does not relate to minor maintenance or minor repairs. SENATOR RIEGER asked if the new language contained in the bill "or who was responsible for certifying that the installation or repair complies with applicable electrical code" is actually sweeping in someone who is presently not required to be under these boards. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that he likes to consider it as an extension of the inspection arm of the state. It is a certifying that what was installed has been installed to code and is being certified and stamped by the administrator. SENATOR RIEGER asked if there is some group of people who are now being covered who wouldn't be covered with this bill. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the transition section is in the bill since the department is going to have to establish the licensing procedure. Currently, electrical examiners do not have a valid license because the Board of Electrical Examiners sunsetted last year. SENATOR RIEGER said his main concern is violations of applicable codes and the penalties that apply and that it applies to violations of codes at the time the repair or installation was made. He suggested going through the bill and every place where it says "complies with applicable code" insert "complies with the applicable codes at the time the installation was made." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that his point hasn't been discussed previously and he shares his concern. SENATOR HALFORD expressed his concern with a $5,000 civil fine that a department can issue based on their own review. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied the person being fined also has administrative review and can argue the validity of the fine and the amount of the fine administratively. He agreed with Senator Halford that it is a big fine. He directed attention to Secs. 26 and 27 which deal with the administrative actions and the fine ability of the department, as well as how an administrator who is being fined can fight the fine and the violation. SENATOR HALFORD asked if the exemptions by area are the same for electrical as they are for mechanical. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that there are some differences, the major difference being the size of the project. SENATOR LITTLE commented that one of the primary issues is making sure that electrical administrators can continue to be licensed in the state, because without them, the state would need to provide a very expensive inspection that it cannot afford at this time. SENATOR HALFORD asked for a motion to adopt the Rules SCS as a working document. SENATOR LITTLE moved that SCS CSSSHB 249(Rules) (dated 4/22/94) be adopted. Hearing no objection, the motion carried. TAPE 94-7, SIDE B SENATOR HALFORD requested that Karl Luck of the Department of Commerce & Economic Development address the following concerns raised by committee members: (1) the ability of the department to impose a civil fine of up to $5,000; (2) the increase in the criminal fines from $300 to $5,000; and (3) the reference in Section 17 where it refers to supervision and it defines an electrical administrator as someone who is responsible for certifying that the installation or repair complies applicable electrical code and the question if that broadens the definition to include possibly someone not now needing licensure; and (4) the difference in exemptions between the electrical code and the mechanical code. KARL LUCK, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, addressing the civil fine, said he didn't think it was inconsistent with what is covered under Title 8 for all occupation professions, and this is an attempt to conform with what is already in existence. SENATOR HALFORD asked Mr. Luck to research and provide the committee with a list of other professions where either a board or a department can fine the individual member of the profession civilly without court action. Continuing, Mr. Luck said that part of the concern in the past that may have contributed to the inability of the board to regulate was that the statute was confusing between what a contractor and what a electrical administrator or a mechanical administrator was. The legislation attempts to clean up the fact that the electrical administrator is not necessarily the person who contracts for installing something or who is in the business of doing something. It may well be that it is a one person business, but that is regulated under different sections in statute. Mr. Luck said he could not explain why there is a difference in the exemptions between the electrical administrator and the mechanical administrator. It is the department's desire to make them both equal and under the same guidelines because they are very similar in nature. Representative Davis interjected that the implementation of the electrical administrators and the mechanical administrators were a couple of years apart and there was different rationale used for some of the numbers. SENATOR RIEGER proposed adding to Sections 14 and 33 the language "which was in effect at the time the repair or installation was made," which would help clarify that the code in effect at the time that the facility was constructed or repaired is what counts. Mr. Luck said he thought it was a fair amendment and would clarify that the code, as it was on the date that the job was signed off, is the applicable code. SENATOR RIEGER offered the following amendment to SCS CSSSHB 249(RLS): Page 6, line 25: After "AS 18.60.580 - 18.60.590" add "that was in effect at the time that the installation or repair was made" Page 13, line 10: After "AS 08.40.490(3)(A)" add "that was in effect at the time that the installation or repair was made" Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the amendment was adopted. SENATOR LITTLE asked if there was an administrative appeal process in place right now, and MR. LUCK acknowledged that there was through APEA. JOE HAYES, representing the Sisters of Providence in Anchorage, read into the record a letter from the Sisters of Providence requesting a change in the bill that would take into account large buildings such as Providence Hospital. At present, Providence Hospital employs two journeymen electricians, and as the law now stands, it is legal for the hospital to obtain permits and perform their own electrical installation. However, if HB 249 passes, the hospital will be required to hire an administrator to oversee their work, which could be extremely expensive for the hospital, adding extra costs to many small projects. The Sisters of Providence are requesting an exception to the administrator's requirements similar to the state guideline in effect for contractors. SENATOR ZHAROFF questioned how many other entities would find themselves in the same type of situation. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS acknowledged that he has had additional concerns relating to that exact same problem. CHAIRMAN HALFORD then requested that he work with the drafters on that area of the bill. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated HB 249 would be held over until the following Monday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|