Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/23/1995 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HSTA - 03/23/95 HB 46 - ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION Number 099 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to bill sponsor, Representative Green, said before he gave his sponsor statement, he wanted to verify the committee had before them proposed committee substitute for HB 46, version K. He passed out copies of this version to the committee. He said there was an error in which version of HB 46 was transmitted. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to present HB 46 to the committee and stated he would like to explain the different sections of the bill to the committee. MR. LOGAN explained that Section 1 of HB 46 regulates when a document must have the stamp of a professional engineer or surveyor. He argued the sponsor had rewritten Section 1 in a more active sense to make it more compatible with the rest of the bill. He stated the committee may hear testimony citing substantial differences between the sponsor's language and that being deleted, but said they disagreed with this argument. He argued the new language clarifies when a registrant has to stamp or seal a document. He stated the intent of the sponsor was to clarify this section. MR. LOGAN continued, Section 2 of HB 46 is the prohibitive practice section of the bill. He stated this section was included at the request of a constituent, who saw there was a conflict in the statutes between AS 48.281 and AS 48.331. Under this conflict, when the Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational Licensing inspectors find a person not in compliance, because of this conflict, there was difficulty in motivating the Department of Law to prosecute these cases because of the loophole. This section of HB 46 attempts to close that loophole, by deleting the words a registered which requires all engineers to be qualified to have that title. MR. LOGAN said Section 3 is the meat of the bill. This section reinserts an exemption from the requirements of the chapter. This section was deleted from the statutes in 1990, but had existed previously. Since the removal, it has become apparent to the bill sponsor, Representative Green, that a lot of companies, workers, and Alaskans in general, depend on and need this section. After reviewing the entire record, Mr. Logan said he found that no members of the public testified at the hearing. He was not sure why representatives affected by this did not testify at these hearings. It turns out, this exemption does affect a large number of Alaskans, and so the bill sponsor is attempting to reinsert it with HB 46. This exemption essentially says that an employee working for a company who does engineering services, need not be a licensed engineer. He felt it was likely the committee would hear comments on both sides of the issue, but was confident the committee would be persuaded to reinsert it into Alaskas statutes. Number 197 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted to clarify that under Section 2, the wording a registered was deleted was an attempt to tighten the legislation that prohibits an individual from claiming to be an engineer for hire, unless appropriately registered. He said the intent was to tighten the statutes, not make them broader. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why, according to public record, the exemption was removed in 1990. MR. LOGAN replied the reason given was that the language was too broad. He said there was testimony from the Division of Occupational Licensing, that there had been a case where a large bank with engineers on staff, claimed to be exempted under the current law. He did not know if the building was ever built. This was the only reason listed in the public record. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any other questions or comments from the committee. She said there were people wanting to testify on teleconference. She asked if there was anyone wanting to testify on HB 46 from Anchorage. She stated she had not received the list of names of those wanting to testify, and so those testifying would have to be clear in stating their names and addresses to the committee. She asked that testifiers limit their testimony to about two minutes. Number 251 DAVID L. BENNETT, employee for PTI Telecommunications, stated the company and their customers had a vested interest in HB 46. He said they were in the business of designing their own telecommunications infrastructure to service their customers. He emphasized they were not in the business of designing systems for other companies or the public. They were not aware of any public safety issues related to telecommunications utility systems design. He wanted to say they supported HB 46. JIM ROWE, Executive Director of the Alaska Telephone Association, said their company was representing 22 local exchange companies in the state, who deliver local telephone service. They were very supportive of the passage of this bill through the legislature. He claimed the exemption was removed without their knowledge or participation. He wanted to point out the language was taken out, not as a result of public outcry and without anyone asking for protection. He claimed there was no indication of any substandard buildings. He said the company does yield completely to national safety standards and building standards. Thus, they did not feel the need for the seal of a licensed engineer on their projects. He argued this would not improve safety standards, as they were already historically good. With this exemption, the company would still be liable for any damages. Furthermore, he wanted to point out that the customers would bear the extra cost of this requirement, should the exemption not be reinstated. He said he would be available for questions from the committee. Number 327 GEORGE FINDLING, Manager of Government Relations for ARCO Alaska, said they did support the proposed committee substitute for HB 46. He said ARCO found Section 1 of HB 46 to be a technical clarification of existing law. He thought the improvement came when the statute was switched to the active voice, as required by the manual of legislative drafting. The new language defines who is to comply with this statute. He said several parties he had been in contact with felt it might be prudent to seek an expedited legal opinion from either legislative or administrative attorneys, regarding whether Section 1 changes existing statute or not. He also wanted to point out, that in the case of a general exemption, ARCO has been on record as supporting this. He said 37 other states currently have broad exemptions. When Alaska had its exemption before 1990, they saw no major disadvantage to it. Having listened to the public record himself, he also found no reason for the change of 1990. By choosing to restore this exemption, he felt Alaska would see an increase in costs and a loss of competitiveness. He wanted to clarify that ARCO was not trying to avoid meeting legitimate safety concerns, but pointed out that they were already a highly regulated industry. In their discussions, he said no one has identified any specific concerns over their operations. Should any arise, he reassured the committee they would address them through the agency that dealt with that activity. Number 377 COLIN MAYNARD, President of the Alaska Professional Design Council, said he and other individuals of the engineering community had met with representatives of the oil, telephone, and cable television industries to attempt to come up with a compromise on this bill. The result was a memo before the committee, which showed general agreement for an approach acceptable for all parties involved. This approach would allow specific industries to be exempted, rather than giving broad exemptions, such as existed before 1990. He argued the exemption was removed in 1990, because of its broad nature. Reinstating it does not solve the problem, he argued. They suggested automatically exempting industries where there was no safety problem, and then allow the board to exempt other industries, as necessary, where public safety was not at risk. He thought this was the intent of the repeal in 1990. He pointed out that the electric utilities industry had been exempted last fall, and by regulation, some of their work was removed from the licensing requirements. Section 3 of their memo, he said, provides the committee with the exact wording of those regulations. He said the point of contention with the telecommunications industry was whether an Alaska licensed engineer should approve REA standards, and it was his belief that someone who knew local conditions should approve those standards. He said they hoped this bill would be amended by the committee to follow the intent of the exemption repeal of 1990. DAVID ADAMS, President of Adams, Morgenthaller and Company, an engineering firm in Anchorage, argued the exemption was deleted in 1990, because it was too broad. The current statute, he thought, allowed for accountability for performance, but agreed that the exemption was entirely too sweeping of a change. He, too, thought the oil and telecommunications companies needed relief. He argued they had been spending a lot of time to try to find a compromise. He also suggested the language provided in Colin Maynards memo. He thought the requirement of a licensed engineer to sign off on a project with a stamp of approval, was better than if the exemption was reinstated, because it made the engineer personally accountable and not the company. Thus, he thought engineers would be more careful in signing off on a project. He thought a sweeping exemption, as proposed in HB 46 was reckless. CHAIR JAMES stated that before the committee took any further testimony, she wanted to give an opportunity for Representative Ogan to testify, as he had to leave. Number 452 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned he had some reservations on HB 46 and concurs that the exemptions are a little too broad. He thought that in certain situations, it might be appropriate, but was concerned about exempting people such as architects and electrical engineers. He urged the committee to take his comments into consideration when they voted. DOYLE CARROLL, Representative of Anchorage Telephone Utilities, said he concurred with the statements of Dave Bennett, saying they also designed telecommunication systems for its customers and did not offer their services to the general public. He said his company only used equipment accepted by the Federal Communications Commission, and that their network was designed according to national industry specifications. Designs are done in conforming with the National Electrical Safety Code. Most of their network, he said, was low voltage of about 48 to 130 volts. He estimated the engineers on their staff had about 15 years experience, and said to his knowledge the company had never experienced any safety concerns in any of its designs. ATU is concerned about the availability of engineers with experience in the telecommunication plant construction. After a recruitment period of six to eight weeks, they had only found two licensed engineers available. Thus, he felt they would be unable to find enough licensed engineers for their operations. He said ATU supports HB 46 as written. Number 502 WILLIAM MENDENHALL, Board Member of the Alaska State Board of Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS) stated he was speaking in opposition to this HB 46 and mentioned he was a member of the Alaska State Board for Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors. He said he was speaking only for himself and not as a representative of the board. He wanted to focus on Section 10 of the bill, which allows exemptions. He felt this bill would allow someone to design anything they wanted, as long as it doesnt involve the design or construction of a structure with walls and a roof. The bill allows for anyone to design a bridge, pipeline, or similar structure without being registered. He felt the exemption was simply too broad. He argued that, in the past, the board had worked quite closely with private industry to provide for individual exemptions. Examples of these exemptions were low-voltage electrical systems and things that meet standard code. Thus, he was confident that the board could work with individual industries to provide appropriate exemptions. He opposed HB 46, as written, and urged the committee not to pass it to the next committee of referral. Number 547 MIKE TAURIANEN, registered engineer and AELS board member, also expressed his opposition to HB 46. He said many of his comments paralleled those of Mr. Mendenhall. He was frustrated that the legislative information office had the wrong version to provide to him, which made it hard to testify. CHAIR JAMES offered to fax him a copy of the proper version. MR. TAURIANEN said he would appreciate this and the chance to testify after receiving this copy. In the meantime, he had some comments on the version he had. He found that little testimony had been offered regarding Section 2 of the bill and wanted to offer his support for this section. He agreed that a trained engineer should be able to use the title, whether or not they were registered with the state. Regarding Section 3, he felt this bill was being rushed and the result would be bad legislation. He felt the exemptions provided in Section 3 were too broad and would like to see the AELS board given some latitude to facilitate those exemptions. He wanted to clarify he was in support of minimal regulation, but was concerned HB 46 was too broad in the exemptions it provided. He said he would like the opportunity to speak again after receiving the updated version of the bill. CHAIR JAMES reassured him the information was being faxed to him and asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify from the teleconference on HB 46. Hearing none, she asked if anyone in the audience wished to testify on this bill. Again, there was no one present to testify. She called for Mr. Logan to respond to some of the concerns raised. Number 596 MR. LOGAN wanted to clarify for those on teleconference, that the difference between Version K of the bill and earlier versions, was the last sentence of the bill, which had been modified in language. In Version K, the last line ended with the word public. In earlier versions, line 28 continues with the wording and if the engineering does not involve the design or construction of a structure with walls or a roof. Thus, if you have an earlier version, he said they needed to simply put a period after the word public and they would have the equivalent of Version K. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments from the committee. Number 608 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had heard this bill in an earlier committee. He said during the discussion in that committee, the same two positions on this bill were discussed. He had the impression that the concerns were mainly of nonregistered engineers designing and constructing buildings that would be open to the public. He had not gotten the impression that those asking for the exemption were interested in doing those types of activities. He understood that bill sponsor, Representative Green, had an amendment to offer, dealing with that topic. He wanted to state for the record, that in dealing with an individual in the field of engineering, the registration process was necessary to allow for accountability. In the case of the in-house employee who provides these kind of services, the responsibility and liability for those services falls on the employee. Thus, he felt there was protection for the public. He felt this was the difference and was not concerned about leaving the public unprotected by not requiring these people to be registered with the state. Number 633 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented she was leaning strongly in favor of this bill, but was concerned about seeing the amendment for the first time. She was also concerned about those people speaking in opposition, who might not have this amendment. She said she was hoping the sponsor would be willing to hold this bill in committee, considering she thought this was the last chance for a public hearing on the bill before being heard on the floor. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded the amendment was to try to find a solution to the controversial Section 10 of the bill. He stated they were sympathetic to the concerns of the AELS board, but felt their suggestions to amend this section, as stated, puts a couple of pages of regulations into statute. He could not agree with this suggestion. He said he would like to offer this amendment to the committee for their consideration. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered to move for adoption, the proposed committee substitute for HB 46, version k. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections. Hearing none, the motion passed. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested the amendment also be faxed off to the legislative information office for public review and comment from those on teleconference. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated after hearing some of the testimony, he would like to modify the proposed amendment with an added sentence. Number 679 MR. LOGAN mentioned the proposed amendment had already been faxed to the Anchorage LIO and was in the process of being faxed to Fairbanks and Soldotna. He explained the amendment as being as follows: On the fifth line, after the word "only," the amendment inserted the words and further. At the end of the bill, after the last word public, add the sentence Exclusion under this subsection do not apply.... REPRESENTATIVE GREEN corrected Mr. Logan on the proper wording and offered to read the new language to the committee. He said his handwriting was hard to read. He said the intended language was suppose to read Exclusions under this subsection do not apply to buildings or structures, whose primary use is public occupancy. TAPE 95-35, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIR JAMES verified whether they had received the amendment in Soldotna. They had not and she reassured them it was on its way. She asked Representative Green to make a motion to adopt the amendment, to allow for committee discussion. Number 009 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that amendment number three be adopted by the committee as amended. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his approval of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS verified this amendment would not affect the telephone utilities, who had testified. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied they would be excluded, as they were prior to 1990. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER clarified this amendment would provide them with the same exemption as they had in 1990, with the exception they could not design a building open to the public. CHAIR JAMES questioned whether they had a copy of the amendment in Soldotna. As they did not, she offered to read the proposed amendment to them. She said the amendment would delete the existing Section 10 and read, An officer or employee of an individual firm, partnership, or employee of an individual firm, partnership, association, utility, or corporation, who practices engineering involved in the operation of the employers business only, and further provided that neither the employee nor the employer offers engineering services to the public. Exclusions under this subsection do not apply to buildings or structures whose primary use is public occupancy. MR. TAURIANEN expressed concern that this does not address structures such as dams, bridges, high voltage lines, generators and similar structures not designed for public occupancy. He thought this was still too broad. Number 076 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the certification process for the state of Alaska for registering engineers, would appropriately determine the qualifications for building a pipeline. MR. TAURIANEN thought it addressed standards for the civil, mechanical, and electrical aspects for building a pipeline, dam, or high voltage line that definitely affect the public. He said if it does not do this, then maybe the state should not have a registration process in the first place. If we have a registration process, he felt we should have a level playing field and uniform rules affecting everyone equally. He was concerned that the legislature was still rushing this bill unnecessarily. Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the problem with trying to get so specific, is that you can get into the situation of injecting several pages of regulations into statute, which still do not specifically define the various types of structures included. He thought this could get so far out of hand as to be absurd. He said this bill was trying to attempt to return the situation to the way it had been and was currently in 36 other states, allowing for in-house design by nonregistered engineers. He said there could be no end to the number of places a person of the public might be, and the entire situation could get entirely out of hand. He said they were attempting to streamline the operation and still protect the general public. He thought this bill did that, certainly as amended. Number 155 CHAIR JAMES asked if there was objection to the motion of passing the amendment to HB 46. Hearing none, the motion was passed. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass CSHB 46, Version K, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented the committee had not heard from Mr. Mendenhall to question his opinion of the amendment. CHAIR JAMES asked if he had any comments on the amendment. She reiterated the new language proposed by the sponsor in committee. MR. MENDENHALL said the amendment was an improvement, but he was still not satisfied his concerns had been met and urged the committee to delete Section 10 of HB 46. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion to move CSHB 46, Version K, as amended, out of committee. Hearing none, the motion passed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|