Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/30/2002 08:35 AM Senate ARR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
January 30, 2002
8:35 a.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Joe Hayes
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair
Senator Lyda Green
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview Of Previous Committee Activities
Community & Economic Dev. Interpretation of "Uniform Mechanical
Code" Generically
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed her decision to [follow] the
International Mechanical Code per the Department of Public
Safety's adoption of that code.
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
BILL SAGER, Executive Director
Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the adoption of the
International Mechanical Code.
DWIGHT PERKINS
International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials
PO Box 33922
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the hope that there would be
legislation addressing this issue.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-1, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the Joint Committee on Administrative
Regulation Review to order at 8:35 a.m. Representatives
McGuire, James, and Hayes and Senator Green were present at the
call to order. Senator Taylor arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled that last year the committee reviewed the
Board of Pharmacy regulations, which were ultimately adopted.
The committee also reviewed the "best value procurement" method
that the University of Alaska Fairbanks utilized, and the
committee is still waiting for an update on that matter. The
Kachemak Bay closure to on-bottom mariculture was reviewed by
the committee a number of times and remains controversial.
Chair McGuire noted that she has drafted a letter to
Commissioner Rue, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, that will
circulate to members. The letter addresses concerns that remain
even after the court decision. Last year the committee also
looked at the proposed rate increases to the Pioneers' Homes,
for which
Chair McGuire and Representative James continue to work on.
Chair McGuire expressed her confidence that this committee will
review those proposed rate increases in conjunction with a
proposal to make the Pioneers' Homes Veterans' and Pioneers'
Homes. This summer the committee reviewed Title 17, which is
still being reviewed. There was also review of Title 13, which
relates to the Department of Public Safety's (DPS) adoption of
the International Plumbing and Building Code.
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEV. INTERPRETATION OF "UNIFORM MECHANICAL
CODE" GENERICALLY
Number 0449
CHAIR McGUIRE turned to the Department of Community & Economic
Development's (DCED) adoption of regulations interpreting the
definition of the "Uniform Mechanical Code". The department
views the statute's reference to the Uniform Mechanical Code to
be a generic term, which allows the adoption of the
International Mechanical Code. Those working in the industry
are concerned with regard to where they will obtain their
certification and the training that will be required.
Furthermore, there are questions regarding when the transition
between codes will occur. Chair McGuire turned to what she
considers the more pressing issue: the separation of powers.
Some members of the committee are of the opinion that the
statutes are clear when referring to the Uniform Mechanical
Code, which doesn't include the International Mechanical Code.
Chair McGuire announced that this meeting is to be informational
not confrontational, and intended for the committee to make a
recommendation in regard to whether the department is adopting
regulations in conflict with statutes.
Number 0641
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development, informed the
committee that the division administers the laws governing
construction contractors and mechanical administrators, both of
which are impacted by [this change in code]. Ms. Reardon
referred to the regulation that was adopted, which interprets
the Uniform Mechanical Code to mean whatever mechanical code DPS
adopts. In the statutes the division administers, there are
three references to the Uniform Mechanical Code. Two of those
references are found in the mechanical administrators statute
and the construction contractors statute. Those statutes are
where DCED draws its generic interpretation. Ms. Reardon
mentioned that there is litigation in regard to this topic.
Number 0913
MS. REARDON pointed out that this regulation was reviewed and
approved by the Department of Law, and filed by the Lieutenant
Governor. Therefore, Ms. Reardon felt that DCED's actions were
in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Department of
Law. She explained that [the division] becomes involved with
this issue because it licenses mechanical administrators, who
are advanced/supervisory plumbers or installers of mechanical
systems. Every mechanical contractor is required to have a
mechanical administrator working with the mechanical contractor.
The mechanical administrator has extra training, experience, and
testing.
MS. REARDON explained that the statute, AS [08.]40.270, directs
[the division] to test applicants before the issuance of a
license. When DPS adopted the International Mechanical Code,
the division questioned under which code it should be testing.
Ms. Reardon said that she saw the following choices. Since
there wasn't a Uniform Mechanical Code in effect in the state,
[the division] couldn't follow a strict reading of the statute.
Therefore, the division could've decided not to give a test on
the code because no such [Uniform Mechanical] code existed any
more. The division could've also viewed the situation to be
that the Uniform Mechanical Code is not in effect in the state
any more.
Number 1123
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled the interim hearing on this matter, which
highlighted the problem that there was [a Uniform Mechanical
Code]. The problem and controversy arose due to DPS's decision
to adopt a different code. There was testimony that although
DPS had adopted the International Mechanical Code, the statute
clearly specified that the code for which testing should occur
was the [Uniform Mechanical Code].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding of [Ms.
Reardon's] testimony that she is in a difficult place because of
[DPS's] decisions. Representative James pointed out that Ms.
Reardon is a step down from the process. The real problem lays
in the regulations that Ms. Reardon is depending on, which
Representative James felt were out of order and don't comply
with statute.
CHAIR McGUIRE reiterated that the issue was that the [Uniform
Mechanical Code] existed, although there was a new [code]. She
recognized Ms. Reardon's challenge in attempting to deal with
this new code, the International Mechanical Code.
Number 1324
MS. REARDON clarified that when she said that [the Uniform
Mechanical Code] was not longer in effect, she was referring to
the "currently in effect in the state" part of the sentence [of
AS 08.40.270(a)(3)]. Although she agreed that there was and is
a Uniform Mechanical Code, she explained that she was looking at
the statement, "the Uniform Mechanical Code currently in effect
in the state" in statute. Due to DPS's adoption of the
International Mechanical Code, the division could no longer
point to the Uniform Mechanical Code as in effect in the state
and for which the testing should occur. Therefore, Ms. Reardon
viewed the choices as follows. One choice being that there is
no Uniform Mechanical Code in the state, and therefore there
would be no testing, which she viewed as contrary to statutory
intent. Another choice would be to view the "currently in
effect in this state" language to not be very important and thus
the testing on the Uniform Mechanical Code that used to be in
the state could continue, which seemed contrary to the statute
as well. There was also the approach that the most weighty
portion of the phrase is "Mechanical Code currently in effect in
the state", which is the route Ms. Reardon chose. Therefore,
she viewed the message of the statute was to test on the
mechanical code that is currently in effect in the state. Ms.
Reardon remarked that she felt she would have been before the
committee no matter the route she chose.
MS. REARDON explained that her goal was to chose the [option]
that kept the spirit of the law and seemed logical to the
customers. Ms. Reardon said:
It seems logical that what I'm being told in this
statute is test on the knowledge that these people are
supposed to apply when they work. And the knowledge
that they're supposed to apply is the knowledge of the
code that complies with other state laws. ... that
seemed to ... be rational to me -- that testing them
on knowledge that they're not supposed to use in the
field, testing them on a code that was not any longer
the code that the state was demanding that people live
up to, seemed maybe not to make as much sense. And
more importantly, when I looked at my customers, the
people coming to take the test, I thought, "It will
make most sense to them to say I'm testing you on what
DPS expects you to be using."
Number 1567
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged the situation as an obvious
dilemma. Representative James inquired as to Ms. Reardon's
understanding of the authority to write regulations.
MS. REARDON related her understanding that the authority to
write regulations is to interpret, flesh out, statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "Aren't regulations to implement the
statute?"
MS. REARDON agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her belief that the statute in this
case are very clear [in its reference] to the Uniform Mechanical
Code, which is a trademark of a specific code. Representative
James opined that the statute didn't allow the regulations to be
written as done by DPS.
MS. REARDON said that she understood the importance of keeping
the branches of government in their proper roles. She
reiterated that the statute specifies that the "Code currently
in effect in the state" should be used.
Number 1776
CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out that this committee took an active
role in the interim. During the time when the regulations were
being noticed, there was a large hearing during which the
committee expressed its concerns. At that hearing, the
committee also expressed its belief that the regulations were in
direct conflict with the statute. Therefore, she inquired as to
why the regulations were adopted in the face of concerns as
opposed to approaching the legislature in an attempt to reach a
statutory compromise.
MS. REARDON noted that she participated in that interim meeting
during which she expressed her plan to public notice the
regulations. Therefore, she didn't believe such action would
take the committee by surprise. Ms. Reardon recalled the
meeting as one in which [members] questioned what she was going
to do with the situation. Ms. Reardon said she thought much of
that meeting was in regard to whether DPS had the authority to
adopt the International Mechanical Code or whether that change
should have occurred. She recalled many questions regarding the
testing and continuing education aspects. She said, "When I
said that my proposal was going to be to test on and ... change
my continuing education requirements to reflect the code that
[the Department of] Public Safety had adopted, I didn't think
... I was hearing 'No, don't do that. Keep continuing education
on the Uniform Code, keep testing on the Uniform Code.'" From
that meeting, she heard the committee voicing its frustration
with the process that resulted in the adoption of the
International Mechanical Code.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she viewed this as the point at which the
process breaks down between the administration and the
legislature. Chair McGuire maintained that it was clear that
the legislature adopted the Uniform Mechanical Code, which is a
trademark. Chair McGuire remarked that with more cooperation
and discussion, such problems could be changed in statute and
thus wouldn't result in the current situation.
Number 2066
SENATOR TAYLOR noted his appreciation of Ms. Reardon's candor
and her angst in trying to determine what the department should
do. "It's tragic that you don't have anybody in leadership that
can tell you what to do," he said. He indicated that the only
entity Ms. Reardon could turn to was [DPS], which was "running
rogue." [As a legislator], he questioned why these things would
be put in law when a bureaucrat can decide otherwise. Senator
Taylor stressed that the legislature establishes the policies.
In this case, the law says that a specific, copyrighted book be
adopted. He questioned how the department could think it could
[not follow the law] and not end up in court. He expressed
curiosity as to the process that led to [the adoption of the
International Mechanical Code].
Number 2230
MS. REARDON said that Senator Taylor's comments seemed to refer
to different sections of statute and two different departments.
Ms. Reardon clarified that DPS has the authority to adopt the
code. Although she didn't know much about DPS's statutes, she
said she assumed that the adoption of the code was referred to
in [generic] terms not specifying the Uniform Mechanical Code.
The Division of Occupational Licensing isn't part of the
decision to change the code. Two different departments are
trying to carry out their statutes in a responsible manner.
MS. REARDON turned to the possibility of a statute change, as
mentioned by Chair McGuire. Ms. Reardon related that at the
interim meeting it was clear that there was an issue with the
change in the mechanical code. Furthermore, she noted her [and
the administration's] awareness of the option for a statute
change. However, "we" didn't feel that these regulations would
be contrary to statute, and still maintain that belief. Ms.
Reardon asked if the committee wants the division to continue to
test on the Uniform Mechanical Code.
CHAIR McGUIRE reiterated that the legislature is charged with
making policy, and there is a fundamental policy difference
between the two codes. Furthermore, the statute is very
specific. Therefore, the [thrust] of the interim meeting was
regarding the need for the legislature to have a policy debate
on whether the code should be changed. The voters [have a
voice] during elections. Chair McGuire agreed with Ms. Reardon
in that there is a bifurcated issue, but the discussion today is
in regard to DCED's specific statute under which applicants are
to be tested. That specific statute refers to the Uniform
Mechanical Code.
Number 2526
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that there is a conflict in
statute in relation to DPS and what it can do in regard to the
implementation of safety issues in the state. However, she
maintained that the statute says [anywhere] that writing
regulations supercedes statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that in the fall of
2000 [changing] this code was contemplated. However, there was
no word to the legislature. She charged that the legislature
could've solved this problem had the legislature been contacted.
Personally, she felt that [DPS] didn't want [to contact the
legislature]. Therefore, Representative James echoed earlier
comments relating to the notion that the issue is beyond Ms.
Reardon. In the future, Representative James suggested such
situations as this to be brought to the legislature rather than
going forward.
MS. REARDON inquired as to the [meaning] of the language
"currently in effect in this state".
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that the language refers to the version
of the Uniform Mechanical Code.
MS. REARDON pointed out that she wouldn't be deciding which
version is in effect.
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to how the version [is chosen].
MS. REARDON explained that each time DPS changed its version,
the division would change the version [on which it tested and
provided continuing education]. Therefore, if DPS took a year
or so to change the version, then the division would be testing
on the older version due to the "currently effect in the state"
language. Ms. Reardon related her understanding from the
committee that she should've kept testing on the last version of
the Uniform Mechanical Code that DPS had adopted before the
change in code. She said she also understood the committee to
say that the "currently in effect in the state" wasn't
significant language.
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that the "currently in effect in the
state" would be significant in regard to the year. The
"currently in effect in the state" provides the division the
opportunity to update the code as it's updated.
MS. REARDON pointed out that she was taking the "currently in
effect in the state" language seriously. She related her
thinking that it would've referred to the "current addition of
the Uniform Mechanical Code" if that's what it meant. She
explained that at times, the state waits a long time to update a
code.
CHAIR McGUIRE stressed that in this case, there was an active
Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review which had a
hearing to clarify that there was a problem between the statute
and what DPS was adopting. "There wasn't a person in that room
who could've come away believing that there wasn't a direct
conflict," she emphasized.
Number 2865
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES agreed that this is a tough situation for
Ms. Reardon, the middle person. He stated that this discussion
should "be one step up."
CHAIR McGUIRE specified that the request was for whomever to be
sent.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES interjected that this is a DPS issue and
thus the committee is probably discussing this with the wrong
individual [department].
SENATOR TAYLOR noted his appreciation of Ms. Reardon's candor
today and in the letter she wrote. Senator Taylor pointed out
that departments read the law and regulations very narrowly and
express the need for laws to be changed versus amending
regulations. However, this department didn't even bother to
come to the legislature for this change but rather changed the
law by regulation.
TAPE 02-1, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed frustration with the level of arrogance
[of the departments].
Number 2966
MS. REARDON clarified that she didn't decide to change the code
in effect in the state. Therefore, she didn't feel that she has
displayed any arrogance. However, she acknowledged that she was
instrumental in the decision to test on the code in effect in
the state. Ms. Reardon remarked that the legislators involved
in this issue should've been aware of their option to introduce
legislation resolving this issue.
Number 2877
SENATOR GREEN inquired as to the timeline during which that
could've occurred.
CHAIR McGUIRE highlighted the fact that during the interim
meeting the legislature wasn't in session. [During that
meeting] she expressed the need [for the legislature] to meet
again and review this issue. However, [these regulations] were
adopted during the interim. Furthermore, [the departments] knew
this was coming up when the legislature was in session last
year. Chair McGuire questioned how the law could be any
clearer.
MS. REARDON related her understanding, from the committee's
letter to DPS, that it requested that DPS hold off on its
adoption of the code.
CHAIR McGUIRE interjected that the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD) is impacted by DPS's decision as
well. The DLWD has decided not to adopt a totally different
code but rather update to the 2000 code, in recognition of the
law.
MS. REARDON pointed out that even after the committee's letter,
DPS adopted the regulations.
Number 2754
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal
Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), began by saying that Ms. Reardon did a good job
describing her dilemma in regard to testing and licensing of
mechanical contractors. Mr. Guaneli surmised that Ms. Reardon
thought, "and responsibly so," that proceeding forward and
testing under the [code in effect] was the responsible choice.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding of Mr. Guaneli's
testimony to be that the International Mechanical Code is the
law due to the actions of DPS.
MR. GUANELI added, "And repealed the other one."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that DPS repealed the
regulations, but didn't repeal the statute because the
legislature repeals statute. Therefore, she indicated that the
question is whether the statute is more binding than the
regulations. Although she recognized that the statute governing
DPS if fairly broad, she said she believes the statute trumps
the regulations and that is the core of the issue.
MR. GUANELI agreed that the statute governing DPS's authority is
quite broad; in fact, there are no limitations in regard to the
regulations DPS can adopt for the purchase of [the various]
codes in the interest of public safety. "The only arguable
limitation comes from a few definitional sections and provisions
in the testing part of the statutes, which Ms. Reardon has to
administer," he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES characterized this situation as one in
which there is statute that authorizes the implementation of
regulations and there is a statute that specifies the type of
code to be used. Therefore, if there was such a severe
conflict, shouldn't it have been brought to the attention of the
legislature in order to make a caveat in DPS's authority or to
make the same change in the Department of Labor where the same
code is also specified. This issue could've been dealt with
last year by changing the statute.
Number 2507
MR. GUANELI pointed out that this issue was brought to the
legislature in 2000 in the form of a budget request by DPS for
$98,000 to adopt the family of International Codes. The
legislature appropriated almost $100,000 to DPS in order to
begin the process of studying the codes. Mr. Guaneli said, "I
would say that given that, there was some legislative, at
minimum, acquiescence but certainly indication of legislative
intent that that was the direction that Public Safety was
supposed to be going in." Therefore, Mr. Guaneli didn't feel
that it's quite accurate to say that the first time the
legislature heard about this code was last summer.
MR. GUANELI turned to the references to the Uniform Mechanical
Code, which earlier testimony has pointed out is copyrighted and
bound. Although that may be true, DPS never adopted the Uniform
Code verbatim. There has always been some adjustment under
DPS's broad authority to adopt what's in the best interest of
Alaska.
CHAIR McGUIRE informed Mr. Guaneli that the Department of Labor
decided to adopt the 2000 version of the Uniform Mechanical
Code.
SENATOR GREEN said that an appropriation for study doesn't imply
that [what was studied is the path to follow].
Number 2354
BILL SAGER, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors of
Fairbanks, testified via teleconference. He explained that the
Mechanical Contractors Association of Alaska (MCA) requested
that he outline the association's concerns with the adoption of
the International Mechanical Code. Mr. Sager informed the
committee that MCA, several unions, and other trade and labor
organizations such as the Associated General Contractors (AGC)
believe that the Uniform Mechanical Code has served the state
well for years and are troubled by the move to the "new and
unproven" International Mechanical Code. More importantly,
[MCA] is puzzled with the manner in which the adoption of this
new code ignores current state law.
MR. SAGER highlighted the fact that the statute refers to the
Uniform Mechanical Code with capital letters. The Uniform
Mechanical Code is a well known code that is a specific,
copyrighted mechanical code not a generic code. He questioned
how much more obvious the law could be. Mr. Sager said,
"Mechanical contractors all over Alaska want to know how the
Division of Occupational Licensing can ignore the laws requiring
testing and education according to the Uniform Mechanical Code."
He questioned how a state agency could ignore the law and adopt
a new code per regulations. Mr. Sager pointed out that the
Uniform Mechanical Code is a proven code that is the product of
an open adoption process. If a new code is necessary, then the
legislature should review this, he suggested.
Number 2105
DWIGHT PERKINS, International Association of Plumbing &
Mechanical Officials, announced that he wasn't present to debate
which code is the better code. He recalled past debate in
regard to various codes for the state [which has led] to the
legislature's adoption of a specific code. Mr. Perkins remarked
that Ms. Reardon has been very helpful. He informed the
committee that there were 50 plus contractors who requested DPS,
the Division of Fire [Prevention] to not adopt the International
Mechanical Code. Additionally, Ms. Reardon's letter to the Code
Adoption Coordinator, DPS, dated June 7, 2001, says the
following:
The proposed change from the Uniform Codes to the
International Codes appears to conflict with the
statutes and regulations administered by the Division
of Occupational Licensing governing Mechanical
Administrators and Residential Contractors. Even if
the Mechanical Administrator and the Residential
Endorsement statutes can be interpreted in a manner
that does not technically conflict with the proposed
DPS regulations, the outcome will be conflicting
policies and public confusion.
MR. PERKINS pointed out that Ms. Reardon's letter goes on to
say:
Furthermore, the continuing education Mechanical
Administrators are required to obtain under Division
regulations is training in the Uniform Codes. All
Mechanical Administrators must renew their licenses by
August 31, 2001, and document 8-16 hours of training
on specific Uniform Codes. This training will not
have familiarized them with the International Code.
MR. PERKINS then turned to the conclusion of Ms. Reardon's
letter:
In conclusion, the Division requests that the
Department of Public Safety delay adoption of the
International Codes until conflicts with the
Mechanical Administrator statutes can be resolved and
the transition can be made in an orderly manner.
MR. PERKINS specified that this is all the mechanical
contractors wanted. Mr. Perkins then turned to a letter dated
May 29, 2001, from Richard Mastriano, Director, Labor Standards
and Safety, Department of Labor & Workforce Development. He
directed attention to the final paragraph of that letter, which
reads as follows:
Finally, the adoption of the International body of
codes would create several conflicts with existing
statutes. These conflicts will have to be addressed
by the various agencies that enforce existing
statutes. Switching enforcement to the International
codes would create confusion and require each agency
to access what the costs of enforcing the codes would
be. In closing, Labor Standards and Safety stands
ready to assist you and your agency with any
assistance you may need from us.
MR. PERKINS pointed out that both of these letters express
concern with the process DPS was using in the adoption of the
International Codes. The process moved forward even in the face
of over 50 contractors expressing confusion with this.
Therefore, the hope is that there will be legislation addressing
this issue.
Number 1758
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to the moving force behind this
change.
MR. PERKINS answered that the statute governing the [Division of
Fire Prevention] says, "The Department of Public Safety shall
adopt regulations for the purpose of protecting life and
property from fire and explosion by establishing minimum
standards." This is broad authority, unlike DLWD's statute,
which is specific. Mr. Perkins said that the Fire Marshall's
Office started this process. In regard to Mr. Guaneli's
reference to DPS's budget request, Mr. Perkins remarked that the
$98,000 appropriation could've been saved by requesting that the
legislature introduce legislation [for the change].
SENATOR TAYLOR identified the situation as one in which a small
group has generic authority from which it decides to change the
specific authority granted other agencies. Senator Taylor
expressed frustration [with the ignoring] of the standard
legislative practice in which the specific law overrides the
generic law. He noted his appreciation of the request to delay
from Ms. Reardon and others. He expressed concern that in the
face of much concern and requests for delay DPS moved forward on
this. Therefore, he suggested that the committee introduce
legislation. Senator Taylor further suggested that there be a
Finance subcommittee to take up the specific budget of those who
don't understand that the legislature sets policy.
Number 1434
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee will introduce
legislation labeled 22-LS1369\A, Bannister, 1/28/02 [which
ultimately became HB 399].
SENATOR GREEN asked if any of these codes overlay [in such a
way] that would allow one to be tested under one code and
qualify under the restrictions and requirements of another code.
MR. PERKINS explained that all these mechanical
contractors/administrator have been taught under the Uniform
Mechanical Code, which was addressed in Ms. Reardon's letter to
DPS. There is an organization that the division uses to write
the tests for these, and they have had to rewrite the test to
reflect the International Mechanical Code. However, the statute
requiring the Uniform Mechanical Code remains. Therefore,
contractors are in flux.
Number 1216
SENATOR GREEN clarified that she is attempting to determine
whether the language should name the specific test that the
legislature intends to be given notwithstanding what DPS has
required. Senator Green moved that as a conceptual amendment.
MR. PERKINS informed the committee that there is a three-year
code cycle. He pointed out that the 2000 version of the Uniform
Mechanical Code is what these folks are familiar with. Mr.
Perkins specified that the language could say, "They're to be
tested per the Uniform Mechanical Code as published by the
International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials".
The language could also refer to the need to update to new
versions of the code as appropriate.
SENATOR GREEN offered Mr. Perkins' suggestion as a conceptual
amendment. There being no objection, the conceptual amendment
was adopted.
Number 1032
CHAIR McGUIRE announced the [committee's] intent to repeal the
regulations in order to return to the legislature's authority in
this area. Then there needs to be a legitimate policy debate in
regard to the International Mechanical Code and the Uniform
Mechanical Code. She further announced the need to review the
broad authority of DPS.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if there is any objection to the [committee
sponsoring] the aforementioned work draft. There being no
objection, the [committee supported sponsoring] the
aforementioned work draft. [This work draft ultimately became
HB 399.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Committee on Administrative Regulation Review meeting was
adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|