Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/20/1995 02:10 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
HB 46 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
SENATOR KELLY announced HB 46 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, sponsor, explained that HB 46 is a "fix
bill." It straightens out when a registrant will issue drawings or
reports, etc. that will be sealed. Section 2 was an attempt to
tighten up who can actually be called an engineer, because some
people were calling themselves engineers without being registered
engineers. Section 3 is the addition of engineering types of
people under the exemption category that compromises 8.48.331 of
the code. It attempts to exempt engineers who do not perform
engineering functions for the public. In other words, they are
doing it for their employer and it is to be used only in that
connection.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
first discussed section 3, where the exemption for employees who
are doing engineering work for their companies is added into the
law. The reason people support this is because they believe the
statutory definition of the practice of engineering is broad and
ambiguous. There is a certain degree of mistrust of the
architects, engineers, and land surveyors Board and believe they
use this broad language to require engineers where they aren't
really necessary. She felt that if the Board was extending the
definition of engineering excessively, that could be corrected by
creating a more balanced board.
Another argument you can hear is that industry has technicians who
do not have formal engineering education, but have on-the-job
experience who are as good or better than registered engineers.
Their position is that while unlicensed employees can certainly
safely perform some design work, there are some types of work that
require the educational background of a registered engineer. She
pointed out that HB 46 does not just exempt utilities or the oil
industry or some of the larger businesses in the state from the use
of engineers, it exempts everyone and it doesn't require that well
trained technicians do the work in the place of engineers. It says
that any employee can which raises the possibility that a day
laborer, for example, could be designing and constructing a public
building.
Finally, MS. REARDON said, one of the arguments they would hear is
that the occupational licensing statutes should not determine when
a registered engineer is required, because that's the proper role
of other regulatory agencies, like DEC or the fire marshall. She
argued that the whole purpose of occupational licensing statutes is
to determine who is adequately prepared to safely perform certain
service and who should be prevented from doing that work, because
there is potential public danger. That is what a medical statute
does, also.
The CS to HB 46 does not completely satisfy the division's
responsibility to protect public health and safety, MS. REARDON
said. Although on page 3, buildings and structures that are
primarily used for public occupancy are excluded from the
exemption. Buildings and structures that are used by employees are
still exempted. They still have some concern with fish processing
plants and office buildings that are used specifically by one
company and making sure they are all structurally sound.
The second concern would be electrical systems. It is not just
utilities who design and construct electrical systems.
Finally, MS. REARDON said, there is discussion that the uniform
building code, through the fire marshall, is providing protection
for structural soundness. However, the fire marshall only reviews
plans to see if they satisfy the fire standards. No one looks at
the plans to see if the structural requirements of the uniform
building code are being met and there is no one to investigate a
complaint that a building does not meet a building code.
She, therefore, supported an amendment which would narrow the
exemption. She suggested to do this would be to exempt electrical
systems over 35 kilovolts and exempt all buildings rather than
those just used for public occupancy. Another alternative would be
to simply delete the word "public occupancy" from line 29 on page
3 and replace it with "human occupancy."
SENATOR KELLY asked her if her department had the same position on
the House bill. MS. REARDON replied that when it went through the
House, their position was that they would listen to public
testimony and hope there would be a compromise developed that would
protect both public safety and address industry interests.
Number 576
VERNON AKIN, Registered Mechanical Engineer, said the word engineer
is used very loosely these days. The reason "registered" was
dropped from in front of "engineer" was so that #10 would be legal.
He supported keeping the word "registered," because that is being
specific.
TAPE 95-18, SIDE B
MR. AKIN said that registration of an architect, engineer, or land
surveyor shows that an individual has passed the requirements of
the state and has the proficiency required to practice the
profession. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, chiropractors, and
barbers, etc. must all be registered. Boards were established to
give the public some measure of confidence that a member that is
registered in that field has competence. It also puts the
responsibility on the members that they either perform as required
or lose their license.
Item 10 was added so that an employee of large company could do
engineering work even though he had no proof required by the state
to indicate he was qualified to design. This allows a company to
produce a design by a non-registered individual and the company
guarantees the work. He pointed out that there is little solace in
that for any injured or dead persons who suffer because of poor
design.
Yet it says that 10 does not apply to buildings or structures whose
primary use is public occupancy. He asked what kind of building
wouldn't be used for public occupancy or could be used for it in
the future. He asked why would we want to lower our standards to
allow more chance of incompetent designs.
MR. AKIN opposed HB 46.
Number 570
SENATOR LEMAN said he is a registered professional engineer,
although his work would not be in the possible exemptions. He said
it is his opinion that some relief is necessary to accommodate
utility companies and industry who do a lot of this work, because
of how the 1990 change has been enforced. To make a change as
broad as this restores almost exactly the wording that was in there
in 1990 and is the wrong approach.
He proposed putting in a new "e" that would provide some size limit
to what a commercial building could be. In item 10 he proposed on
line 3 inserting "unless the health, safety, or well-fare of the
public, including employees and visitors is involved." He also
suggested added "employees and visitors" in other appropriate
places and adding "high voltage electrical systems." Third, he
suggested inserting "other requirements of state law, local
ordinances, building officials, property owners, or adopted
construction and safety codes."
He noted that there are requirements other places in state law for
engineering seals on designs and engineering reports. It needs to
be clear that these are not exempted and this is not what is being
sought.
He also said there may be future possibilities for exemptions that
come up and he thought those should be addressed when they come up
and suggested item 11 "other exemptions granted by the ALS Board by
regulation when the health, safety, or welfare of the public are
not substantially involved."
Number 511
SENATOR SALO asked if the bill needed language to assure that other
requirements in law for a P.E. certification, as well as municipal
ordinances requiring P.E. certification. SENATOR LEMAN said he
would like that comfort, although the drafting attorney might not
think it necessary.
GRAHAM ROLSTAD, Vice President, Engineering Construction, Matanuska
Telephone said he represented the Alaska Telephone Association. He
said he supported the bill as written and felt that section 3, item
10 is very critical to the telephone utilities in providing cost
effective services to their customers.
MR. ROLSTAD said prior to 1990 there was an exemption that was
removed without public hearing. He said there wasn't a problem up
until that time, and he didn't see the need for over-regulation.
He said there are specialists in telephone work and national
standards they live by which allow them to put in telecommunication
facilities that protect the public. The bottom line is that the
people are well trained and the companies are responsible for their
work and they take that responsibility seriously.
Number 450
NANCY SCHOEPHOESTER, ARCO, Alaska, supported CSHB 46. She noted
that section 3, reinstating the in-house exemption for engineers
which existed in Alaska prior to 1990 currently exists in 37 other
states. They feel there is a licensing board whose duty it is to
determine what the qualifications are to become a licensed
engineer. They feel it is within the purview of the regulating
local state and federal agencies to determine and regulate the
activity.
She said that Ken Thompson, President of ARCO has established as
one of his priorities within ARCO that there will be a safe, low-
cost, and long-term company.
LEE HOLMES said he is a licensed mechanical engineer in Alaska. He
supported the first two parts of the bill and the intent of the
third part of the bill. The exception he has is with the wording.
He didn't have a problem with MTA, for instance, in designing
telephone systems, but he didn't see where that would qualify them
to design a new office building for MTA. The wording of the
exception would allow them to do that.
Number 426
DICK ARMSTRONG, Chairman, ALS Board, opposed HB 46, because they
feel the exemption proposed in section 3 is too broad and does not
protect the public from unsafe buildings or facilities. With the
amount of remote construction that occurs in Alaska and the
relatively few building code officials, passage of this exemption
will lose a key component of safety in resulting facility
construction.
Future purchasers of facilities that are not designed by licensed
professionals are going to be purchasing potentially non-code
conforming properties that are a very real threat to public safety.
PATRICK DOOLEY said he supported HB 46 without change. He said all
it does is restore the exemption for in-house engineering work
which would save the state many millions of dollars. Their
experience with those people is that their work is professional and
in compliance.
JANET REESER, Engineering Services Manager, said they are well
regulated and very responsible and supported HB 46 as written.
Number 362
KIMBERLY CHANCY, registered engineer, said that registration alone
does not insure individual competency to work in specific
industrial applications. She has found that the industry is pretty
comfortable in knowing where their reputations lie.
STEVE ALTECH, Manufacturing Manager, supported HB 46 without
change.
ROB WHITE, Raytheon ARCO Alliance Contract, supported HB 46 in its
unamended form. This bill is in the best interests of Alaskans
providing quality control. He specifically mentioned he supported
section 3.
Number 294
JOHN BURDICK, registered engineer in Alaska, said he thought
section 10 was too broad as written. In addition the increased
cost is a red herring. He said a lot of his students work for ARCO
and it wouldn't be hard for them to become registered and it would
be a hurdle that would protect the public.
JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association,
supported HB 46 in its current version. He emphasized that this is
a compromise piece of legislation. He appreciated the legislature
making review of this issue a very public process as it didn't
happen in 1990 when essentially the same wording in section 3 was
taken out. In the interests of his customers who will bear the
burden of the increased cost of having registered engineers do
every piece of infrastructure development he pleaded that they do
not increase their telecommunications costs.
KEN BROCK, Engineer with ARCO Alaska, supported HB 46 and in
particular the reinstatement of licenses and exemptions for in-
house engineers.
COLIN MAYNARD said the registration law is to protect public safety
by requiring minimum qualification to do engineering work. The
state has the responsibility to make sure that engineering is done
by qualified people. He supported HB 46 and the language Senator
Leman proposed.
SENATOR KELLY asked if professional engineers were required to keep
up continuing education. SENATOR LEMAN replied no.
Number 169
BOB HANCOCK, Anchorage Telephone Utility, supported HB 46 as
written. He said their plant is designed in accordance with
industry standards. They use AT&T guidelines and national safety
codes. They have had no complaints of substandard construction.
They have had no incidences of physical injury or harm caused by
construction or their engineering methods. They do not offer
engineering services outside of their business.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to pass HB 46 from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|