Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/08/1995 03:10 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
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
March 8, 1995
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
Representative Brian Porter
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 46: "An Act relating to the practice of architecture,
engineering, and land surveying."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HB 46
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 46
GRAHAM ROLSTAD, Interim CEO
Matanuska Telephone Association
1740 South Chugach Street
Palmer, AK 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-5412
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
JIM ROWE, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association
4341 B Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
NANCY SCHOEPHOESTER
ARCO Alaska
P.O. Box 100360
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 263-4655
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-25388
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 46
PAULA ELLER
Yukon Telephone
P.O. Box 873809
Wasilla, AK 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-6007
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
BLAINE BROWN, Division Manager Network Planning
Anchorage Telephone Utility
600 Telephone Avenue, Mail Station 12
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 564-1216
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
MIKE TAURIAINEN, Professional Engineer
Mike Tauriainen Consulting Engineers
35186 Spur Highway
Soldotna, AK 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4624
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 46
ALAN SEE
Alaska Power and Telephone Co.
Skagway, AK
Telephone: (907) 983-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
DAN GORDON
Tel Alaska, Incorporated
2121 Abbott Rd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 349-2400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
RANDY NELSON
GTE Alaska Incorporated
4300 B Street Suite 303
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-2199
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
TOM CRAFFORD, Manager
Minerals and Coal
Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
2525 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
BYRON HAYNES
4830 Ridge Top Circle
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 338-9373
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
AL DICKENS
Arctic Slope Telephone
Association Cooperative
4300 B Street, Suite 501
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-3989
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 46
COLIN MAYNARD
1400 West Benson, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99503-3690
Telephone: (907) 274-3660
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 46
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 33 (H) LABOR AND COMMERCE, STATE AFFAIRS
03/08/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-16, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was called
to order by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, Masek, Elton,
and Kubina. Representatives absent were Porter and Sanders.
HL&C - 03/08/95
HB 46 - ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT stated that there was one matter before the
committee, HB 46, but that it was not his intent to move this bill.
Number 025
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Prime Sponsor of HB 46, stated that
Sections 1 and 2 of the bill were new. He said, there are
additional ramifications dealing with registration.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
explained the reasons for the changes to HB 46. He said Section 1
is a rewrite, not a change in the intent of the bill. It states
that when a registrant (registered engineer) issues final documents
or drawings, they shall sign the documents and affix their seal.
He stated that it was an attempt to clarify that it is the
responsibility of the board to maintain the integrity of the seal.
It is not the responsibility of the board to require that the seal
be on a document. He continued that Section 2 contains language
from the original bill, which is statutorily ambiguous. The
change, taking out "a registered", clarifies and conforms the
section so that it is clear that the legislature's intent is that,
when a person says "an engineer," that this means they are an
engineer. He said that Section 3 is an exemption section that adds
subsection ten. This subsection was in the law until 1990; it was
taken out in HB 182. Mr. Logan stated that he has reviewed the
entire public record for that bill, and he has listened to the
tapes of every hearing. He said that the deletion of this
subsection has had enormous impact on a number of Alaskans and
Alaskan businesses. He continued by saying that during the hearing
on HB 182, there was no public testimony, except for that given by
the board. He stated that the public clearly did not have their
say.
Number 131
CHAIRMAN KOTT entertained a motion to adopt the CS for HB 46.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt CSHB 46(L&C).
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections. Hearing none,
the motion carried. The F version dated February 17, 1995, was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER joined the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Logan if during those meetings there had
been any discussion by the board, as to why this section had been
removed.
MR. LOGAN responded that at that time Randall Burns, Director of
the Division of Occupational Licensing, had given a very good
presentation on the bill. The reason they removed the exemption
was that they believed it was too broad. The example given was
that of a bank that went to the division and said that they had an
engineer who was not a professional engineer (PE), but, that he was
going to design a building, and in essence, there was nothing the
board could do about it. He said it was felt by the people who
testified that the exemption was too broad.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if they further realized the consequences of
that exemption.
MR. LOGAN responded that there was no discussion of that.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked if the zero fiscal note would remain
the same.
MR. LOGAN answered that it would.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON queried whether Section 1 clarified that the
plans shall be signed by the registrant. He asked if that was all
they were trying to accomplish.
MR. LOGAN stated that was correct.
Number 205
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the language in Section 1 would
clarify certain circumstances that had occurred in the Anchorage
jurisdiction in the previous year.
MR. LOGAN replied no.
Number 225
GRAHAM ROLSTAD, INTERIM CEO, MATANUSKA TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION (MTA),
indicated he is also a registered engineer in the state of Alaska
as well as the state of Washington. He testified in favor of HB
46. Mr. Rolstad stated that he was also the Chair of the Alaska
Telephone Association's Engineering and Planning Committee and was
testifying on behalf of the member companies. He stated that in
the telephone business, engineers are required to follow
specifications that have been established over the years. These
specifications are used universally, keeping in mind public safety
and the requirements for maintenance and protection of the plant.
He did not believe that this should require a PE to stamp the
specifications if the individual worked for the company. He stated
that the company takes responsibility for any plants they put in
the field. He said if there was a problem that occurred regarding
public safety, there is an avenue for redress, both financial as
well as administrative. He stated that they had tried to work
through the regulations last year to make this issue less onerous.
He stated that this exemption is in the public interest.
Number 345
JIM ROWE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA),
testified in support of HB 46. He said that it allows the local
exchange carriers to build telephone infrastructure. It allows
them to have access to a service and does not burden them with an
extra cost of paying for a service that has no use to them, such as
the sealing of documents. He stated that at least 36 states
totally exempt utility engineers from the requirements of
licensure. He commented that by restricting the number of people
entering the profession, licensure can result in increased cost to
consumers and a shortage of licensed professional services in
certain geographic areas, such as Alaska.
Number 393
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the ATA supported the extension of the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC).
MR. ROWE stated that the ATA does advocate the reauthorization of
a regulatory body.
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired if the APUC were not extended, what
protection would the consumer have.
MR. ROWE responded that the administrative code would offer that
protection, regardless of the APUC.
Number 409
NANCY SCHOEPHOESTER, ARCO ALASKA, testified in support of CSHB 46.
She stated that the Occupational Licensing Program offers
parameters for testing the requirements of those people qualified
to serve in the public sector and hold the seal for registered
documents. She commented that they support Section 1 of the bill
because it clarifies ambiguous language with respect to the use of
the seal. She said that in Section 2, they would prefer language
that would state a person may not declare he/she is a registered
engineer unless he/she is, in fact, a registered engineer. Ms.
Schoephoester continued that 36 other states have an in house
exemption. She pointed out that there are parties from both sides
of this issue that want to sit down and look at some compromise
language. She said that ARCO supports and encourages this.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked how this legislation would affect
ARCO.
MS. SCHOEPHOESTER replied that ARCO currently employees a number of
in-house engineers; some of these engineers are registered, some
are not. She explained that without the exemption, they would be
required to have registered engineers seal final drawings and final
specifications, which with an in-house exemption could by-pass
registered engineer. She reiterated that this is strictly in-house
work. She stated that a number of state and federal agencies
regulate their work, and in those cases where a seal is required by
a registered engineer, they comply.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the North Slope Borough had any
type of building codes, or did the state building codes affect the
operation of ARCO in the outlying areas.
MS. SCHOEPHOESTER replied yes, but she would have to check on that
for certain.
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated that
administrative implementation of this bill is not difficult. She
anticipated the CS would be a zero fiscal note. She stated that
the department has a neutral position on the legislation at this
time; however, the Board of Occupational Engineers and Land
Surveyors is in opposition. She said that her concern was that
the oil industry may use highly qualified employees for their
design work and have state and federal agencies oversee their
design work, but there are other businesses or individuals who
choose to construct structures, using their own employees, without
any engineering or design background in areas without building
codes. Therefore, she said that it was possible that structures
might go up that can't with-stand snow loads or earthquakes. She
concluded that it was her hope that the committee could come up
with a way to protect health and safety while not obstructing
industries that are already adequately regulated.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON inquired if there had been public safety
problems before this exemption was removed.
MS. REARDON responded that she did not have any facts on that
issue.
Number 503
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the board did or did not oppose
this legislation.
MS. REARDON answered that they do oppose it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that the board's position was to retain the
use of the term registered in reference to architects, engineers,
and land surveyors. He asked if she knew the rationale behind
this.
MS. REARDON stated that they had taken the position on the original
HB 46, when it was a more limited issue. Their letter to her
stated that their position was to retain the use of the word
"registered" in reference to architects, engineers and land
surveyors in Section 2. She felt their concern was that within the
same firms, there were people who were not registered engineers,
and perhaps it was overly restrictive to limit the term architect
or engineer only to themselves.
Number 532
PAULA ELLER, YUKON TELEPHONE, testified via teleconference that she
supported HB 46. She stated that they were an electric, telephone
and cable T.V. company in business since 1960. She stated that
they had never had any problems and didn't think they needed a PE
to stamp their records. She stated that customers rates are higher
because of the area they serve and asked the committee to take that
into consideration.
BLAINE BROWN, DIVISION MANAGER, NETWORK PLANNING, ANCHORAGE
TELEPHONE UTILITIES (ATU), testified via teleconference in support
of HB 46. He stated they had been trying for several months to
find a PE outside the plant supervisor to no avail. He stated that
they use their joint use agreements and build their plant in
accordance with various specifications. He referenced the Alaska
Administrative Code, under the APUC AAC 52.260, and said that ATU
does comply with specifications under the Bell System Standards,
OSHA and the National Electric Safety Code. He stated that all of
their engineers are trained in these practices and refer to them
when designing jobs.
Number 570
MIKE TAURIAINEN, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, MIKE TAURIAINEN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, testified via teleconference that he has been a
registered professional engineer since 1972, and has been on the
Architects, Land Surveyors and Engineers Board (ALSE) since 1991.
In referring to Section 1, he stated that the original language
required final documents covered by AS 08.48 to be sealed and
signed by a registered architect, engineer and/or land surveyor.
The proposed language does not restrict an unlicensed person from
issuing final drawings, specifications and surveys. In Section 3,
he said the new paragraph would enable entities, whether they be
developers, builders contractors, or hotels, to employ anyone they
want to design structures as long as they are not offering
engineering services to the public. He explained that national
hotel chains could retain an in-house designer to design a hotel
and the law wouldn't, under the proposed language, be required to
be registered, yet the public would be using that facility. He
said that ALSE Board has supported some exemptions for electrical
utilities and realizes the need to do the same for telephone and
cable T.V. He said that he believed the ALSE Board should be
charged with defining and implementing appropriate exemptions via
the regulatory process. He finished by saying that this would
relieve the legislature from having to address technical issues of
relative risks to the public. He feels that section two of the
original bill was overly restrictive and confusing to the public.
TAPE 95-16, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. TAURIAINEN continued that people needing a registered engineer
will be less confused if that term is used instead of the generic
term engineer.
Number 020
ALAN SEE, ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 46. He stated that the telephone
utilities follow many standards and are fully regulated by the
APUC. They feel that additional regulations are not necessary.
Number 040
DAN GORDON, TEL ALASKA, INCORPORATED, testified via teleconference
in support of HB 46. He stated that they didn't want the added
cost of the construction being passed on to the consumers, and
construction would require time with the limited number of PE
within the state. He stated that they are certified and deemed fit
and able.
Number 061
RANDY NELSON, GTE ALASKA, INCORPORATED, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 46. He stated that they had a
commitment to the state of Alaska and their customers. They have
millions of dollars invested in the state and it was not in their
interest to build substandard plants.
Number 088
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was any organization that
oversees the quality of the workmanship that his people produce.
MR. NELSON responded that to his knowledge, there was not a
specific agency; however, they do have requirements through the
permitting process with the Department of Transportation. This
would also fall under the federal regulations and they also have
the National Electric Safety Code Standards.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired if Mr. Nelson felt any necessity
for further review.
MR. NELSON stated that they had adequate internal review.
Number 121
TOM CRAFFORD, MANAGER, MINERALS AND COAL, COOK INLET REGION,
INCORPORATED, speaking on behalf the Alaska Producers Council,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 46. He stated that
it is standard industry practice to not have a PE status for mine
design or mine planning documents. He said that he didn't see any
problem existing within the mining industry regarding certification
of engineers, and felt that a requirement of that sort would only
add additional complexity and cost.
Number 142
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired if there was any oversight that
provides a check on the work done in-house by mining companies.
MR. CRAFFORD responded that the mining industry is very thoroughly
regulated. There are periodic examinations of underground mines by
the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Surface mining
falls under the same types of inspections.
Number 165
BYRON HAYNES, REGISTERED ENGINEER, testified via teleconference in
support of HB 46. He said he is a registered engineer in the
states of Alaska and Texas. MR. HAYNES stated that he works for
British Petroleum, and in his company there are both registered and
non-registered engineers. He said that, while BP is endeavoring to
stay in compliance with the Alaska registration engineering
statutes, their ability to move engineers to Alaska where their
expertise is of the greatest value, has been significantly hampered
by the loss of the in-house exemption for registered engineers. He
concluded that this restriction on the ability of companies to best
utilize their people resources and brain power is not good for
Alaska.
Number 223
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the status was of the uniform
building code (UBC) in the unincorporated areas that don't have
jurisdiction or building code enforcement.
MR. HAYNES said that he wasn't aware of any.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the non-registered engineers
working for BP are under direct supervision of the registered
engineers.
MR. HAYNES replied yes, they are under supervision by the
registered engineers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the exemption would give them
greater flexibility.
ME. HAYNES stated that the flexibility exists with bringing new
people in all the time. They have to be mindful of the backgrounds
of the people being brought into the state.
Number 263
AL DICKENS, ARCTIC SLOPE TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION COOPERATIVE,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 46. He stated that
if sealing the documents by a professional engineer would enhance
the quality of services they provide or enhance safety to their
employees and the general public, he would support that, but the
only thing this process accomplishes was an added expense.
number 281
COLIN MAYNARD, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL DESIGN COUNCIL, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 46 in its entirety. He stated
Section 3 should be narrowed. He gave an example of a Burger King,
in Fort Wainwright, designed by engineers in Texas that did not
have a vapor barrier or heating system in the restrooms. He stated
that there was already an exemption, in the bill, for modifying
buildings where public safety is not at risk. He stated that the
telecommunications industry does not involve public safety, and it
would be fairly simple for the board to exempt most of their work.
He said in the case of the oil industry, they don't have a problem
with exempting down hole reservoir engineering that does not affect
the public safety. However, buildings and pipelines that already
require registrations should remain that way. He stated that there
was no requirements of the oil companies that every engineer be
licensed, the person in charge has to be licensed. He said that
the state of Alaska did not have any building codes outside of
Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT closed public testimony on HB 46.
Number 373
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Green to go over
Section 2 again.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that Section 2 takes out the word
"registered" at the request of the professional engineering group.
He stated that the concept is to make it more restrictive rather
than less restrictive. If this legislation were to pass, you could
not profess to be an engineer for public hire, unless you were
licensed. The way it currently is, all you'd have to do is leave
that term off of your application to the public, and you would not
be violating the law.
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he was concerned that they
didn't hear from any land surveyors or architects. He questioned
why they were changing this if everyone under the exemption was
okay as it currently stands.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated Section 2 covers those areas exempted
and those areas not exempted. It must address both areas. He said
that dropping the word registered would not allow people to do
something that they otherwise aren't allowed to do. It's just the
reverse. He concluded that it was closing a loophole, not opening
one.
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made an observation that companies that would
generally build faulty projects would usually need to get financing
for their projects. He stated that they are not going to get
financing with faulty designs.
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that it was essentially the employer who would
be liable if there was faulty work done, and they wouldn't
generally accept that.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if it was the intent of the committee
to hold this bill over until the next committee meeting.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that Representative Green was going to do
further work to smooth the edges.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee, Chairman Kott adjourned the meeting at
4:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|