Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/07/1995 01:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SL&C - 3/7/95
SB 99 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
JOSH FINK, legislative aide to the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee, gave the following review of SB 99. SB 99 relates to
the practice of architecture, engineering and land surveying. It
seeks to clarify existing law pertaining to the regulation of these
professions and return to current law exemptions which existed
prior to 1990. SB 99 makes the following three changes: (1) it
clarifies existing law as to when a registrant would be required to
stamp a document under seal; (2) it would correct an ambiguity in
the law which provides who can claim to be an architect, engineer,
or land surveyor; and (3) it reintroduces an exemption for certain
employees who do not offer their services to the public but
practice engineering as part of their regular work duties for their
employers.
MR. FINK continued. Section 1 amends current language to require
a registrant under the chapter to sign and stamp final drawings,
specifications, surveys, plats, plates, reports and other similar
documents. Current law requires all final documents to be signed
and stamped under seal. SB 99 requires only documents from
registered architects, engineers and land surveyors to be signed
under seal.
MR. FINK explained that certain members of the board felt they had
authority to determine what documents had to be sealed and stamped.
Others have taken the position that departments or businesses
requesting such drawings could make that determination, limiting
the board's duties to determining who was qualified to provide the
stamp and seal. SB 99 clarifies that only documents produced by
those professions under the board can stamp and seal.
Section 2 tightens the law to prohibit the offer to practice the
profession of architecture, engineering or land surveying unless
the offering person is an architect, engineer, or land surveyor
registered under the chapter. It would further prohibit the use of
titles or descriptions tending to convey that a person is an
architect, engineer, or land surveyor unless that person is duly
registered.
Number 073
Section 3, seeks to restore for officers or employees of a firm,
partnership, corporation, or association, other than an electric
utility, an exemption from licensure by the AELS Board. This
exemption existed in law until 1990. This exemption would apply to
those individuals who practice engineering only when required by
the person's work duties connected with the person's employment if,
and only if, the person's employer is not in the business of
offering engineering services to the public. This covers in-house
engineers, i.e., ARCO, BP, Usibelli Mine, native corporations and
utilities, and any other businesses that utilize in-house
engineers. Those companies were unaware of the removal of the
exemption which occurred without debate. Last year, companies were
made aware of the removal of the exemption and have found there is
no way to operate under the revised statute.
MR. FINK continued. In regard to telephone utilities, there are
virtually no registered professional engineers specializing in
telephone utilities in Alaska. Assuming enough engineers could be
found, the cost to the consumer would be substantial, and there
have been no reported problems under the exemption system. Removal
of the exemption will have significant impacts on both utilities
and customers, both in rates and the timeliness with which services
are provided. Reinstitution of this exemption does not present the
issue of licensing and regulation based on public protection.
Licensure guarantees the public that a person holding himself out
as a professional meets the minimum standards. An employee of a
utility does not offer services to a customer. The utility itself
offers service to the general public and the utility itself is
responsible and liable for the job performance of its employees.
The key is liability. SB 99 is an important vehicle which will
allow utilities to continue to operate as they have been been
within the letter of the law. In its present form, the law will
force utilities to operate in a more costly and impractical manner
which will result in significant delays and increase costs to
customers. He asked those opposing SB 99 to note whether they are
aware of any problems that have occurred.
Number 148
CHUCK RUSSELL, an employee of United Utilities (UU), testified in
support of the exemption for telephone utilities. UU is interested
in having the law revert back to the pre-1990 status so that they
can operate without the undue burden of trying to locate and hire
professional engineers unnecessarily.
DAVE ADAMS, a professional engineer, testified in opposition to
Section 3 of SB 99. He did not disagree with what the sponsor is
attempting to accomplish, but felt this particular exemption to be
so broadly written that companies such as K-Mart, Walmart, etc.,
could construct facilities without ever having to hire a
professional engineer or architect on the project. He felt the
concept has merit, and agreed with the telephone companies that no
one has ever been damaged by a fiber optic or telephone cable
underground, but he expressed concern that the wording of
subsection (10) is so fatally flawed that it needs to be completely
rewritten. He noted the oil companies also have an interest in
subsection (10). He informed committee members prior to the
weekend informal meetings of professional engineers and
representatives of the oil industry were held to try to work out
acceptable language to meet all needs. For the time being, he
recommended subsection (10) be completely stricken. Regarding
Section 2, he stated HB 46, which predates SB 99, is the cleaner
version of this. He requested Section 2 be amended.
Number 177
MIKE TAURINIAN, a member of the Board of Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors (AELS), made the following comments on his own
behalf. Regarding Section 1, original language required all final
documents covered by AS 08.48 be sealed and signed by a registered
architect, engineer, and/or land surveyor. The proposed language
does not appear to restrict an unlicensed person from issuing final
drawing specs, etc., so the change is slight and the intent is to
conform with Section 3. Section 2 removes the word "registered,"
which is overly restrictive and confusing to the public, in the
permissible use of the term "architect, engineer, or land
surveyors." He felt this to be especially important in the use of
the title of engineer which has been used generically for hundreds
of years. The AELS Board did take action in opposition to SB 99 at
its February meeting. He expressed concern that Section 3 would
enable an individual to employ anyone they want to design
structures, walls, treatment plants, or whatever, as long as they
were not offering engineering services to the public. He explained
SB 99 would also enable a national hotel chain to have in-house
employees, not necessarily engineers, design a building, which
would eventually be leased to the public. He felt that some
activities should be exempted from initial registration
requirements, and he noted the AELS Board has recently supported
exemptions for electrical utilities. He recommended that the AELS
Board be charged with finding and implementing appropriate
exceptions via the regulatory process, as they have done in the
past. This would relieve the Legislature from having to address
technical issues of relative risk to the public associated with the
nuances of engineering, design, etc.
Number 259
SENATOR SALO asked if Mr. Taurinian's concern with Section 1 was
that it allowed non-registered people to seal and sign official
documents. MR. TAURINIAN responded that Section 1 does not
restrict a non-registered person from issuing documents. He
believed the intent of that language was to conform to the change
in Section 3, subsection (10).
SENATOR SALO asked if Mr. Taurinian was opposed to SB 99. He
responded, "Yes, very much."
Number 280
RANDY NELSON, representing G Alaska, testified in support of SB
99 and the exemption for telephone utilities to generate
engineering documents for telecommunications type work within their
exchanges for their own use. After 20 years in the industry, he
has not worked in a state that requires a seal for such type of
work. The documents (or specs) used by G Alaska are in accordance
with the National Electric Safety Code, and either meet or exceed
those requirements. He commented he was unaware of any problems
that have resulted in the past. He stated the intent of an
exemption was not to get into the engineering field of buildings or
areas outside of the normal telecommunications field where
requirements for building additions are contracted out to
appropriate engineering firms. He concluded, "If it's not broken,
don't fix it."
BOB BELL expressed concern with subsection (10) of Section 3. He
believed that if the AELS Board determines what documents need to
be stamped, there would a conflict with the requirements of other
agencies, such as DOT and the State Fire Marshall. He felt a
compromise could be reached specific to benign engineering
services. He explained in designing telephone systems, the design
of the wires would pose no problem, but the design of the telephone
pole itself would, because it could fall over. He believed the
pole design should be stamped because of the life/safety factor.
He stated projects such as underground cables of less than 120
volts, down-hole locations for an oil well, and reservoir
engineering do not have life/safety factors, but projects that do
generally require stamps from the agency that regulates the
project. He believed a compromise could be reached if more time
was available so that all of the people involved could get together
and come up with wording for subsection (10) to make it more
acceptable. He agreed with David Adams that the original intent of
the bill was to tighten up the term "engineer" because it is used
indiscriminately and conveys the wrong message to the public. He
recommended making that change and drafting consistent language to
make the bill more acceptable to all people involved.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked Mr. Bell who he was representing. MR. BELL
stated he was representing himself, as a registered professional
engineer and land surveyor.
Number 371
SENATOR SALO asked Mr. Bell what direction the compromise should go
in and if adding the following language would address his concerns.
"Not withstanding any of the exemption provisions in this
section where statutes or regulations require a seal it shall
be done by a professional engineer."
MR. BELL suggested narrowing the language to try to cover benign
type engineering projects. Otherwise, a list of what agency
governs what type of project, depending on the location, would need
to be created.
SENATOR SALO discussed whether or not an established quality of
service is the issue, or whether it is about which test is taken.
She noted that in a discussion with a major oil company, it came to
her attention that all of their engineers are licensed, but not
necessarily so in the state of Alaska. They are concerned that
their engineers may be required to study for, and take, the test in
the state of Alaska, which is very time consuming, even though
their jobs are very specialized. MR. BELL responded, that as far
as the oil companies go, most engineers can become registered by
reciprocity, and the only additional requirement is that one must
take a course in engineering. If an oil engineer was designing an
above-ground facility, he/she would need that expertise. He/she
would be required to stamp the drawing, which would be stamped by
the fire marshall also.
Number 431
AL DICKENS, representing Arctic Slope Telephone, stated his
opposition to requiring telephone companies to hire professional
engineers to seal design specifications. He explained it would
create delays and additional costs, and those services would be
used on a part-time basis only. He did not agree the issue was one
of safety, as telephone companies have operated successfully for
over 100 years without that requirement.
GARY HAYNES, Vice President of Operations for Prime Cable and Vice
President of Alaska Cable Television Association, stated he
supported subsection (10). He stated his associations are unaware
of any problems that would motivate the changes.
TOM CRAFFORD, a geologist with Cook Inlet Region Incorporated
(CIRI), and former geologist with the Greens Creek Mine, testified
in support of SB 99. He stated he was unaware of any existing
problems.
TOM SCARBOROUGH, representing himself, expressed concern about the
same paragraph mentioned by others. He was concerned that because
native corporations do a large amount of water and sewer projects
in the bush, they would not be required to put registered engineers
on staff to do the design work, circumventing the wish of the AELS
Board. There is nothing in SB 99 to prevent that and the health
and safety of the public would be at stake. They tried to do this
with land surveying but it could not be done because there is no
exemption.
Number 482
VICTOR WILLIS, Nushagak Telephone and Electric, testified in favor
of SB 99. Most of Nushagak's telephone plant is underground and
most work is run-of-the-mill work governed by [indis.] regulations
and guidelines. It poses no hazard to the public. He believed the
exemption should be allowed for telephone companies.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director of the Alaska Miners' Association,
stated his support of the intent of Section 3, as it is common
practice within the mining industry, and has not created any
problems. Federal laws specify the instances where projects need
to be signed off before they can be completed. He noted mining
engineers are often involved in projects with safety concerns which
are covered by federal requirements. In the six states he has
worked in as an engineer, no other state requires on-mine site
engineers employed by a mining company to be registered.
COLIN MAYNARD, a member of the Alaska Professional Design Council
(APDC), a group of approximately 10 different architectural,
engineering and land surveying services, representing about 1200
registrants, testified in opposition to SB 99, particularly
Sections 1 and 3. The semantic change in Section 1 would allow
non-registered people to issue documents which could endanger
public safety. The APDC is more concerned with Section 3 because
it is overly broad. The AELS Board has worked with electric
utilities, the one group that has been exempted, to decide what
projects do, and don't, pose a danger to public safety. The
electric utilities are satisfied with the present system, therefore
he felt other industries could work with the AELS Board. The APDC
is not opposed to exempting the telecommunications industry, but
was not knowledgeable enough about the mining industry to have an
opinion. He questioned why there are registered mining engineers
if most states do not require registration. He saw the biggest
problem occuring when a builder hires an unregistered person with
little or no experience. He noted up until 10 years ago the
Municipality of Anchorage did not check to see if drawings were
stamped until the AELS Board intervened. He expressed concern if
stamped drawings are not required by state law, there is nothing to
prevent the municipality from reverting back to that. Presently
there is no state building code, and no enforcement of any building
code outside of Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, and possibly
parts of the Kenai Peninsula. The only review of drawings is done
by the State Fire Marshall who looks for fire-related safety
issues. There is no review of mechanical or electrical drawings;
they only check the structural drawings to make sure that the loads
are about what they think it should be. There is no review of
whether those drawings are adequate or not. The only current
safeguard in commercial building design outside of the three
municipal areas is the fact that licensed practitioners do those
drawings. If that exemption is removed, public safety will be
greatly endangered.
BYRON HAYNES, representing himself, stated in his company there are
both registered and nonregistered engineers. He noted while his
company is endeavoring to comply with the Alaska registered
engineers statute, his ability to move engineers to Alaska by the
laws of the in-house exemption of registered engineers places a
restriction on the ability of the company to best utilize their
people. He supports SB 99 and the exemption for engineers who
practice for a single company from issuance of [indis.]
requirements. Engineers who have to be covered by such an
exemption are not offering their services to the public, only to
the company that employs them. Those companies are very mindful of
their status and liability issues for the acts of their engineers.
This requires them to be more vigilant in ensuring that the highest
level of professional standards are met. The best method of
protection for the public is served by SB 99. Many regulations
apply through different state departments. Under federal law there
are 148 regulations required involving registered engineers. These
regulations cover the safety and welfare of Alaska citizens. He
asked for the committee's support of SB 99.
DICK ARMSTRONG, chair of the AELS Board, testified in opposition to
SB 99. He stated the Division of Occupational Licensing polled all
board members with the same result. He opposed SB 99 for the
following reasons. If Section 1 is adopted, unlicensed people may
prepare financial specifications for reports without having to seal
their work product. It also implies they do not have to accept
responsibility for the design. There is no way that this will
enhance public safety, rather it will open the doors for
potentially unqualified designers or self proclaimed engineers. He
proposed including language that would allow the AELS Board to
define specific exemptions based on the relative risk to the
public.
Number 553
PAULA ELLER, (indisc.) Yukon Telephone and Power Company, an
association of 12 small companies in rural Alaska, expressed
concern about requiring professional engineers to sign off, or be
on site, during any construction projects. She believed the
service would become unaffordable. She stated there are 101 small
electric utilities and not enough professional engineers to go
around.
Number 542
LANCE MEARIG, President-elect of the Juneau branch of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, represented himself as a registered
engineer in Alaska. He opposed Section 1 of SB 99 and suggested
retaining the existing language. He had no position on Section 2,
but was opposed to subsection (10) of Section 3 as he did not
believe there are existing controls in place to ensure public
safety. He explained that in many small municipalities, there are
no requirements for registered engineers to stamp drawings or
specifications when state or federal money is not involved.
Number 525
SENATOR LEMAN commented he was disappointed to see SB 99 introduced
because he was working with a number of the utility companies who
were testifying on compromise language with the intent of amending
SB 43. He believed SB 99 provides too broad of an exemption and he
preferred narrowing the exemption. He agreed that nearly all of
the underground work does not need to be stamped by an engineer
since it is low voltage and public safety is not threatened. He
believed the work done this past summer by the AELS Board and
utilities is an appropriate solution and he felt cable TV falls in
the same category as telephone utilities. He also believed
exemptions may be appropriate for certain industries, but crafting
the concept more narrowly would be the better approach. He
suggested narrowing the exemptions and providing for additional
exemptions that may be authorized by the board. The AELS Board
would then become the board of appeal where proposals could be
presented and exempted when appropriate. In summary, he felt
Section 3 should be rewritten.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director of the Division of Occupational
Licensing, testified. She noted, from an administrative point of
view, SB 99 is not difficult to implement and would have no fiscal
impact. The Division views its responsibility as protecting the
consumer and health and safety of the public. She hoped for a
resolution which permits industry to operate in the state while
simultaneously protecting health and safety concerns.
Number 478
JIM ROE, Executive Director of the Alaska Telephone Association,
supported SB 99 because it is in the public interest. It would
allow local exchange carriers to build telephone infrastructure,
allow Alaskans access to telephone service, and not burden
customers with increased rates. There is no record of unsafe or
substandard infrastructure construction by local telephone
companies in the state. Prior to 1990, as a number of people have
already testified, this exemption was permitted for all utilities
as well as other corporations. It was removed without discussion.
The ATA discovered the change one and one-half years ago and has
been in noncompliance since that time. There are 26 states that do
exempt all utility engineers from the licensure requirement.
Regarding Section 3, he said it is the same as language that
existed prior to 1990, with the exclusion of the electric
utilities. He stated he was unaware of any buildings constructed
by large corporations prior to 1990, that were designed by other
than professional architects or engineers. He thanked Senator
Leman for his willingness to work with ATA on the issue, but he
stated during meetings, they were unable to narrow down language
that would give the telephone utility the exemption they need. ATA
believes it is better to have the public interest defined by the
Legislature than by a regulatory board that has an obviously vested
interest in the issue. Without SB 99, the government will continue
to regulate a problem that does not exist.
Number 448
GRAHAM ROLSTAD, interim president CEO of Matanuska Telephone,
Chairman of the Engineering and Planning Committee of the Alaska
Telephone Association, and a registered professional engineer in
the State of Alaska, testified. He stated he has been in the
telephone industry for 30 years, primarily in an engineering
capacity. He has worked in three states and has never had to seal
a drawing; he believed that requirement for in-house engineers is
unnecessary to produce quality products and produce the engineering
for a specialty that is vitally needed. Most of the engineers he
worked with over the years have not been professional engineers.
He supported SB 99 as he believed it is in the public interest to
restore the telephone industry exemption. MTA's engineers are not
degreed engineers; they are trained in-house on specifications that
have been utilized for a number of years and are continually under
review by telephone companies nationwide. They do take into
consideration public safety, national electric safety codes, good
engineering standards for the customer, cost factors, and are there
to serve the public. They are specialists in their field and most
would be unable to pass a professional engineer exam because the
exam is more geared toward the degreed engineer with a broader base
than specialized training. SB 99 would create a situation where a
great deal of very talented engineers would no longer be able to
perform their task for the companies they are employed by if this
exemption is not reenacted. Mr. Rolmstead stated he tried to work
out some type of arrangements for the telephone utilities to work
through the regulations with Mr. Armstrong last year, to see if a
compromise could be reached, however they were unable to come to an
agreement therefore the ATA has come to the conclusion that
legislation is the best route to use for ATA and its companies to
rectify the situation. He stated they do not want to operate in
violation of the law, but feel it is a necessary evil. He urged
the committee's support of SB 99.
SENATOR TORGERSON stated the committee would not take action on SB
99 during the meeting as it needs more work.
GEORGE FINDLING, manager of government relations for ARCO Alaska,
and a registered professional engineer in California, testified.
He stated the Occupational Licensing Board regulates the behavior
of individuals which is the reason for his support of SB 99. He
supported Section 1 because it clarifies in statute that the Board
of Occupational Licensing will determine how to use the seal.
Regarding the issue of how to prevent unlicensed engineers from
issuing unsealed drawings, ARCO Alaska has found that through other
regulations, i.e., building codes, fire marshall codes, etc., the
industry is highly regulated, and professional engineers have to
seal drawings that could affect the public. He stated a mild
dislike for Section 2 because there are not two words for
"engineer" as there are in the legal profession for "lawyer," who
is someone who has graduated, and "attorney" who is licensed and
certified. He stated the statute is inconsistent. He suggested
resolving the issue by only allowing registered engineers to call
themselves registered engineers. Regarding Section 3, he commented
36 states have exemptions similar to SB 99. He stated they are
working toward a compromise to see if they can find "belt and
suspenders" language to those particular cases where there might be
a concern that the regulations that would belong in other areas of
the government are not working well.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|