Legislature(2011 - 2012)FAHRENKAMP 203
03/20/2012 01:30 PM Senate ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Proposed Changes in 12 Aac 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions | |
| Proposed Changes in 7 Aac 70.110 - Additional Requirements for Providing Alcohol and Drug Detoxification Services | |
| Proposed Changes in 12 Aac 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
March 20, 2012
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Representative Kurt Olson, Vice Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PROPOSED CHANGES in 12 AAC 56.115 - PLEASURE CRAFT EXEMPTIONS
- HEARD
PROPOSED CHANGES in 7 AAC 70.110 - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROVIDING ALCOHOL AND DRUG DETOXIFICATION SERVICES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CURTIS THAYER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development and
Chair, Board of Marine Pilots
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to the
regulation changes in 12 AAC 56.115.
CARTER WHALEN, President
Alaska Marine Pilots
Dutch Harbor, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised questions regarding the regulation
changes in 12 AAC 56.115.
CAPTAIN ROBERT WINTER, Marine Pilot
Southeast Alaska Pilots Association
Ketchikan, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned the regulation changes in 12 AAC
56.115.
TERI KEKLAK, Manager
Program Integrity and Medicaid Services
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding 7 ACC 70.110.
PAUL FINCH, PA representing himself
Fairbanks, AK.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of changing 7 ACC
70.110 to authorize physician assistants to supervise nurses.
ROBERT R. THOMAS, PA representing himself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of changing 7 ACC
70.110 to authorize physician assistants to supervise nurses.
JON SHERWOOD, Medical Assistance Administrator
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding 7 ACC 70.110.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:35 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Tuck and Olson and Senators
Wielechowski and Chair French. Senator Wagoner arrived soon
thereafter.
^Proposed Changes in 12 AAC 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions
Proposed Changes in 12 AAC 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions
1:33:08 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the first order of business would be
consideration of the proposed changes to 12 AAC 56.115 by the
Board of Marine Pilots.
SENATOR WAGONER joined the committee.
1:34:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Thayer to summarize the actions the Board
of Marine Pilots recently took with regard to regulations
dealing with marine pilots and foreign pleasure craft.
CURTIS THAYER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) Commerce and Chair,
Board of Marine Pilots, reviewed the composition of the seven
member board and clarified that he was speaking as a board
member only.
1:35:34 PM
MR. THAYER discussed the governor's request for departments to
review regulations with the idea of becoming more business
friendly, and the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing decision to introduce four amendments to
12 AAC 56.115 during the November 9, 2011 meeting of the Board
of Marine Pilots.
He explained that the first amendment, 12 AAC 56.115(a)(3)(H),
revises how the division addresses applications for pilotage
exemptions for foreign pleasure craft. Under current statute a
foreign pleasure craft under 175 feet that wants a pilotage
exemption has to first get a certificate of financial
responsibility (COFR) from the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and then submit the application through the
marine pilot coordinator. The proposed change allows the
applications to be submitted simultaneously. Nothing in the
application or requirements was changed, and the Board of Marine
Pilots still has the final say on granting the exemption.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the country of flagging has any bearing on
the board's decision-making process for granting exemptions.
MR. THAYER said no. Responding to further questions, he
clarified that the regulation applies to vessels whose keel was
laid in some country other than the United States.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if most of these vessels were owned by U.S.
citizens.
MR. THAYER confirmed that many are U.S. owned.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many exemptions are granted each summer.
MR. THAYER replied the number fluctuates but on average, the
number is 20.
1:42:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked how long it takes to get an exemption
under the current process.
MR. THAYER replied it can take up to two weeks.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that the time-savings would be
meaningless to vessels that plan their itineraries a year or two
in advance.
MR. THAYER responded that a delay of a week or two can be very
meaningful to smaller yachts that do not make plans well in
advance. He noted that there had been instances where owners
were unaware of the requirements and arrived in Ketchikan
without having gone through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked what it would cost for a 175 foot
vessel to spend two months in Alaska waters.
MR. THAYER replied he would have to follow up with the exact
numbers but the cost is based on the length overall (LOA) of the
vessel. He noted that the board also addressed a regulation
about how to determine vessel length.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON questioned whether it might not be more
efficient to structure the fee schedule to accommodate last-
minute applications. He opined that doubling the fee on a multi-
million dollar vessel would not discourage the owner from making
the trip.
MR. THAYER said that was not contemplated in the regulations
that were passed by the board.
1:46:14 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked how many vessels apply for an exemption
every year and the average length of stay.
MR. THAYER replied about 20 yachts receive exemptions and some
stay all summer.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if any agency supervised or controlled the
amount of fish these yachts take from Alaska waters.
MR. THAYER responded that was outside the purview of the Board
of Marine Pilots, but fish and wildlife regulations were
provided in the application package.
1:48:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what reasons would cause DEC to deny
an exemption for a small vessel.
MR. THAYER replied there probably were none; the certificate of
financial responsibility (COFR) is required by the Coast Guard
and most vessels carry one automatically.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what reasons would cause the board to
disapprove an exemption.
MR. THAYER replied there are numerous reasons, but very few are
actually rejected. He explained that consideration is given to
past violations, qualifications of the crew, experience in
Alaska waters, type of vessel, and insurance. He noted that
charter vessels were never exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there was a difference between an
over 175 foot private vessel, commercial vessel, and charter
vessel.
MR. THAYER clarified that the exemption applies only to foreign
hulled vessels that are less than 175 feet in length, and that
charter and commercial vessels do not qualify for a pilotage
exemption.
1:51:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many passengers are typically on
board these vessels.
MR. THAYER estimated that a 150 foot yacht would probably have
6-10 guests and a professional crew of 3-5.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the crews were trained or
qualified marine pilots.
MR. THAYER replied they all have certifications and merchant
marine licenses.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if prior knowledge of Alaska waters
is required.
MR. THAYER said no, but most of the people applying for an
exemption have been in Alaska waters at some time in their
career.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if, for example, someone who cruised
in Southeast 20 years ago would be eligible to cruise in the
Whittier area.
MR. THAYER said yes, if the board granted an exemption.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how much fuel these vessels typically
carry.
MR. THAYER estimated the capacity to be up to 5,000 gallons for
the vessel plus 50-60 gallons for a tender.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was specific data as to the
expected economic gain from these regulatory changes.
1:52:58 PM
MR. THAYER said no.
1:53:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he thought it would it be safer if
these yachts had an Alaska marine pilot aboard.
MR. THAYER replied he follows the statutes, which stipulate that
any vessel under 175 feet can apply for an exemption and any
vessel larger than 175 feet requires a marine pilot.
SENATOR WAGONER highlighted his marine experience and opined
that certification and licensure doesn't necessarily mean a
person is a good marine pilot and can navigate.
MR. THAYER responded that the only incident last year that he
was aware of was a 100 foot vessel that ran aground while on
anchor. It was not a foreign vessel so the board had no
jurisdiction over it.
1:55:50 PM
MR. THAYER reviewed the second amendment, a new paragraph 12 AAC
56.115(a)(4) that stipulates that a copy of the vessel registry
will be submitted to the marine pilot coordinator with the
exemption application. He explained that this standard document
gives the length overall of the vessel and that that number is
used to calculate tariffs and fees. The board passed this change
6:1.
The third change amends 12 AAC 56.115(b) and reaffirms the
state's right to impose a fine of up to $10,000 per episode on
pleasure craft in compulsory pilotage waters without either a
pilot or an exemption. As a side note, he highlighted that
investigation costs are borne by the board, but the fines go to
the general fund. This drives up costs for the licensees.
1:59:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked about the relative economic impact of a fine
versus the charges recouped for pilotage services. He asked if
each day is a separate violation, and specifically how the fine
for a vessel in violation on a continuous 30-day trip compares
to the cost to hire a pilot for that same period.
MR. THAYER deferred the latter question to a pilot explaining
that the tariffs are negotiated between the pilot association
and vessel agents.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that it was a civil fine and that the
statute would be construed against the government in favor of
the person paying the fine. He opined that unless a specific
provision defines each day as a separate violation, the 30-day
trip would be just one violation.
MR. THAYER reviewed AS 08.62.190. Penalties, and noted that the
fine can be as high as $30,000 on the second offense.
CHAIR FRENCH reminded Mr. Thayer that he didn't address whether
each day is a separate violation.
MR. THAYER offered to follow up after he consulted the
Department of Law (DOL).
CHAIR FRENCH observed that legislative counsel, Terri Lauterbach
was directing Mr. Thayer to a provision that might shed light on
the question.
MR. THAYER cited AS 08.62.040(f) that says, "Each entry into
state water in violation of this chapter or AS 08.62.180(b) is a
separate violation."
CHAIR FRENCH posed the example of a vessel that enters state
waters at Ketchikan and exits 30 days later at Kachemak Bay, and
reiterated his opinion that it will be construed against the
department to be one violation unless the statute specifically
says that each day is a separate violation. He agreed that the
fine for a second violation would be $30,000 and questioned why
there should be an opportunity for a second violation.
MR. THAYER responded that the Marine Pilot Association can still
charge the vessel for services not rendered so the vessel owner
would pay that in addition to the fine.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that the state was surrendering that
option by eliminating that aspect of the regulation.
MR. THAYER offered his belief that the Marine Pilot Association
retains the ability to charge for services not rendered.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed the association can assess a charge, but the
regulatory change allows a vessel to get an exemption not having
paid. The deleted language says the vessel cannot return until
the appropriate charges have been paid.
MR. THAYER said he assumes in that circumstance that the board
would discuss the unpaid charges and deny the exemption.
CHAIR FRENCH turned the discussion to safety with the
observation that that was why the legislature asked for marine
pilots in the first place.
2:04:42 PM
SENATOR WAGONER stated that it did not matter whether the vessel
had a foreign bottom or a U.S. bottom. The issue was safety on
the water and that was what the committee should be addressing.
2:05:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON referred to the amendment to 12 AAC
56.115(c) and asked the intent of removing the requirement that
the vessel master hold a valid unlimited radar observer
endorsement.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that question was in reference to the last
regulation change the committee would address.
MR. THAYER read the regulation and explained that the board
voted unanimously to table that amendment and send it to a
subcommittee. Final action was not taken on that regulation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned whether any thought was given to
putting the Board of Marine Pilots under either the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) or the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) instead of the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED).
MR. THAYER replied he was unaware of any such discussion. He
then pointed out that the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing regulates 40 professional licenses, half
of which have a board like the marine pilots so it appropriately
fits within commerce. He estimated that foreign pleasure craft
regulations were probably five percent of the board's work. He
listed the other duties, and opined that if Alaska had
regulations and policies in place that encouraged pleasure craft
to come to Alaska it would clearly help the small communities in
Southeast. Also, when more large and small yachts come to Alaska
there's more business for marine pilots and vessel agents. It's
about commerce and the board wants to do what it can to
streamline welcoming people to Alaska. He noted that the board
voted 5:1 on these regulations.
2:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that Carnival Cruise Line found
that commerce was affected when people did not have a sense of
security. The company saw a significant drop in earnings after
the recent [Costa Concordia] disaster, illustrating the
importance of maintaining the highest standards of safety.
MR. THAYER emphasized that these regulatory changes streamline
the process, but the requirements were the same and did not
affect safety.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the amendment to 12 AAC 56.115(b)
didn't make it easier for foreign vessels to operate without
marine pilots.
MR. THAYER offered his belief that streamlining the process did
not change the requirements. The same information is required
and the application goes through the same approval process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked the dollar amount of the penalty for
a violation under subsection (b). He read the deleted language,
"and (2) pays the appropriate charges for pilotage services in
accordance with 12 AAC 56.205(a),(b),(c), or (d)."
MR. THAYER responded that refers to a private action between the
pilot association and the owner of the pleasure craft, although
the Board of Marine Pilots retains the ability to receive that
payment. He interpreted the change as reinforcing the state's
right to fine, something it had not been doing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned the wisdom of removing the
language in paragraph (2).
MR. THAYER explained that the deleted language put the state in
the position of forcing a third-party action. It referred to
charges the vessel owner may owe the pilot association, not the
state. He reiterated that the state retains the ability to fine
the owner of the pleasure craft, and this clarifies that there
may be two actions.
CHAIR FRENCH offered his view for redrafting the regulation to
eliminate the opportunity for a future exemption.
(b) If a pleasure craft of foreign registry of more
than 125 feet overall length enters compulsory
pilotage waters without a pilot or a pilotage
exemption under AS 08.62.180 (b) - (e), the operator
of the pleasure craft will not be granted a subsequent
pilotage exemption.
He continued that the board believes it is reaffirming the
state's right to assess fines, but to actually provide a method
for doing so he would suggest replacing the deleted language
about pilotage services in paragraph (2) with the phrase "and
paid the fine under AS 08.62.040(f)." That subsection talks
about the fines the state can assess.
2:14:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented on the difficulty of filing suit
to recover pilot fees when the organization is based in a
foreign company.
MR. THAYER responded that it would be difficult with or without
the changes to the regulations. He added that the authority was
retained in statute.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the statutory reference.
CHAIR FRENCH said the committee would hear testimony from marine
pilots while Mr. Thayer looked for the reference.
2:15:53 PM
CARTER WHALEN, President, Alaska Marine Pilots, Dutch Harbor,
AK, discussed the reasons that regulations regarding marine
pilots were critical to the Alaska economy and environment. He
cited the Costa Concordia disaster to emphasize the importance
of the Alaska laws regarding marine pilots in maintaining safety
and preventing marine accidents. When passengers aren't sure of
safe navigation through dangerous waters, they won't sail, and
any large vessel plying Alaskan waters, including foreign
pleasure craft over 65 feet, is a potential oil spill if it runs
aground.
MR. WHALEN said he finds it troubling that the board tasked with
enforcing Alaska's system of pilotage appears to be
accommodating industries' desire to weaken the system. DCCED
recently offered four amendments that weaken marine pilotage
regulations to the Board of Marine Pilots, and three passed. In
each case the logic was to streamline the exemption process in
order to stimulate economic development from the foreign
pleasure craft market. However, no economic data was offered for
the board to consider.
MR. WHALEN cited the amendment to 12 AAC 56.115(b) as
particularly perplexing. The law was broken yet the process to
get an exemption was expedited absent the only measure designed
to keep foreign yachts from violating the law in the first
place. He suggested that if the board is concerned about the
pilot association being compensated for the avoided service
fees, it should have amended the language to include a daily
penalty equal to the cost of hiring a state-licensed marine
pilot. Now all a foreign yacht has to do for next year's
exemption is to provide satisfactory documentation detailing the
vessel's entry and voyages in violation. Regulations and
penalties sufficient to serve as a deterrent no longer protect
the state's interest. He reconfirmed his opposition to the
regulation changes and concluded that Alaska and protecting
Alaska's economy and environment should come first, and foreign
pleasure craft owners should come second.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if he agrees that a foreign pleasure
craft operator can get an exemption without having settled his
or her obligations.
MR. WAYLEN said that's correct. The board passed the amendments
expeditiously with logic that doesn't hold water. The third
change was a particularly good example of that.
2:27:43 PM
CAPTAIN ROBERT WINTER, marine pilot, Southeast Alaska Pilots
Association, said he has piloted vessels in Alaska for more than
20 years, is a retired U.S. Coast Guard officer, and has served
on the Board of Marine Pilots foreign yacht committee since its
inception in 2003. He stated that when the Board of Marine
Pilots considered four amendments to the regulations for foreign
pleasure yachts, an overwhelming majority of the comments were
against these changes. Opposing comments came from marine
pilots, the former chair of the Board of Marine Pilots, former
public members of the board, general counsel for the American
Pilots Association, the U.S. Coast Guard, and several members of
the public yet the board overwhelmingly passed each proposal.
He agreed with other statements that the pilots' primary
interest in the issue is safety. He confirmed that pilots
generate little income from these vessels because they are
largely exempt from needing a pilot. Vessel agents are the only
entity that stands to gain from slacking the requirements
because exempt yachts are required to hire an agent. He
continued to say that getting the word out that Alaska is open
for business is well and good as long as the state is protected.
The Alaska Pilot Act requires pilots to be available for
dispatch 24/7, 365 days a year and the expense of having a pilot
available is ongoing. Those costs don't go away when a vessel
that is required to employ a pilot fails to do so. He cited a
recent example of a foreign pleasure craft that received an
exemption and spent most of its time in Alaska operating as a
charter vessel. When the operator was caught and fined, the
vessel left state waters and the fine and charges went unpaid.
He concluded by saying that Alaska has one of the weakest yacht
requirements in the nation and he hopes it doesn't turn into
Rodney Dangerfield's Caddyshack.
2:32:41 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the committee could look forward to
receiving written comments from Terri Lauterbach. He asked Mr.
Thayer if he had any concluding comments.
MR. THAYER recapped the public process for reviewing proposed
regulation changes, and said it would be helpful going forward
if the pilots and their attorneys offer suggestions to improve
the process. These regulations were considered for over 90 days
and not one attorney from the pilot association stepped forward
to offer comment.
2:35:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what entity suggested the regulation
changes.
MR. THAYER replied the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing asked for them based on instances of past
issues. He reiterated the intent was to streamline the process
without dumbing down the regulations.
^Proposed Changes in 7 AAC 70.110 - Additional Requirements for
Providing Alcohol and Drug Detoxification Services
Proposed Changes in 7 AAC 70.110 - Additional Requirements for
Providing Alcohol and Drug Detoxification Services
2:36:38 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the second matter before the committee
relates to physician assistants and additional requirements for
providing alcohol and drug detoxification services under 7 AAC
70.110. He asked Ms. Keklak to give the committee an overview of
the recent regulatory changes.
2:36:54 PM
TERI KEKLAK, Manager, Program Integrity and Medicaid Services,
Division of Behavioral Health, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), Anchorage, AK, explained that the Behavioral
Health regulations outlined in 7 AAC 70.010-70.990 generally
outline DHSS's responsibilities under AS 47.30.520-620 the
Community Mental Health Services Act, and AS 47.37 the Uniform
Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act. Specifically, AS
47.37.140 grants DHSS the responsibility for determining
standards in treatment facilities.
The Behavioral Health regulations in 7 AAC 70.110 define the
requirements for providing services in detox facilities,
including staffing requirements. The regulations were drafted to
ensure that professional workers practice within the scope of
practice defined by their professional licensing statutes and
regulations. AS 08.68.265 expressly excludes physician
assistants as a category of professional who can oversee
licensed practical nurses. Therefore, 7 AAC 70.110(d)(3)(E)
limits the supervision of licensed practical nurses (LPN) to
physicians and advanced nurse practitioners.
AS 08.64.107 grants the Board of Medicine the authority to adopt
regulations regarding licensure of physician assistants, and the
regulations under 12 AAC 40.410 require a physician assistant to
practice under a collaborative relationship with a licensed
physician. The Behavioral Health regulations under 7 AAC 70.110
were drafted to ensure that they did not allow practice outside
of the professional authorities.
MS. KEKLAK relayed that DHSS was consulting with the Alaska
Medical Board to clarify whether or not the collaborative
relationship includes RN supervision. Depending on the outcome
of that consultation, DHSS will amend its regulations
accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the collaborative agreement is any
different for a PA working in a certified detoxification
facility compared to any other medical facility.
MS. KEKLAK explained that the collaborative agreement does not
speak to the type of facility; it is an agreement with a
licensed physician that defines the scope of practice and
service that the PA can provide.
CHAIR FRENCH informed the committee that Melissa Stone, the
director of the Division of Behavioral Health, and Jon Sherwood,
the medical assistance administrator for DHSS, were available to
answer questions.
2:42:45 PM
PAUL FINCH, representing himself, said he works as a physician
assistant at Gateway to Recovery Detox Center in Fairbanks, AK.
He testified in support of authorizing PAs to supervise RNs and
LPNs in a detoxification facility. He said it was an oversight
that they were not included when the regulation was written. PAs
now sign standing orders for nurses to do their work in clinics,
outpatient clinics, and sometimes hospital settings, so it is a
matter of common sense to include detox services, he said.
2:45:43 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Finch if his view was that "physician
assistant" should be added in 7 AAC 70.110(b)(4)(D) and (E) to
the list of professions who can supervise a registered nurse or
a licensed practical nurse.
MR. FINCH said it should be added there and other locations
where the same language appears throughout the regulation.
2:46:13 PM
ROBERT R. THOMAS, physician assistant (PA), Anchorage, AK, and
past president of the Alaska Academy of Physician Assistants,
spoke in support of amending the regulations to give PAs the
authority to supervise nurses in detoxification facilities. He
said he believes that when the regulations were written it was a
simple oversight that PAs were omitted from this supervisory
role. He explained that PAs work under the supervision of a
collaborative physician and that physician delegates certain
authority to the PA. In every other setting, this includes the
supervision of nurses.
2:48:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if he was aware of any other fields
where PAs were not allowed to supervise nurses.
MR. THOMAS said no.
2:48:47 PM
JON SHERWOOD, Medical Assistance Administrator, Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), offered to answer questions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he would characterize it as an omission or
deliberate that physician assistants were not included in 7 AAC
70.110(b).
MR. SHERWOOD replied he would agree with Ms. Keklak's statement
that DHSS tried to write the regulations to not conflict with
the statutes regarding licensing of physician assistants or the
supervision of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses.
If DHSS changes the regulations it wants to understand from the
professional boards that it reflects the appropriate scope of
practice. There is a very explicit statute that limits who can
supervise LPNs; it lists doctors, nurses, and dentists, but not
physician assistants. If delegation is permitted DHSS wants to
ensure it has clear guidance from the professional boards that
DHSS's regulation would not conflict with that statute.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for confirmation that he saw the omission as
deliberate.
MR. SHERWOOD responded that DHSS deliberately tried to write it
not to overstep its authority. He did not know that the issue of
delegation was explicitly addressed or that the department
considered how the regulation would be interpreted. He deferred
further comment to Ms. Keklak.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Keklak to comment on the last exchange
and to remind him of the exact statute.
MR. SHERWOOD cited the reference as AS 08.68.265, Supervision of
Practical Nurses.
2:51:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if PAs testified during the public
portion of the regulation changes, and if they reported what was
happening in the industry.
MR. SHERWOOD replied he did not have an answer, but it may be
part of the record.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Keklak if she had anything to add to the
exchange.
2:52:32 PM
MS. KEKLAK agreed with Mr. Sherwood's statements, and offered to
go through the record and forward any information and comments
from PAs.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if AS 08.68.265 specifically omits
PAs.
MR. SHERWOOD said AS 08.68.265 says, "A practical nurse shall
work under the supervision of a licensed registered nurse, a
licensed physician, or a licensed dentist."
2:54:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if that was specific to behavioral
health services or in general.
MR. SHERWOOD replied his understanding was that it is a general
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted the conflict between earlier testimony
and the statute and raised the issue of potential violations.
MR. SHERWOOD clarified that he was not an expert in professional
licensing and suggested it was a discussion to have with the
Board of Nursing or staff from the Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if it was correct to say that there
was not opposition to PAs overseeing nurses; the concern relates
to the way the statutes were written.
MR. SHERWOOD replied he was not aware of any opposition. He
reiterated that DHSS was simply trying to write the regulations
in a way that did not conflict with any statute relating to the
regulation of professional licensing and professional oversight.
2:56:37 PM
^Proposed Changes in 12 AAC 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions
Proposed Changes in 12 AAC 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions
SENATOR WAGONER asked for a little more discussion on the marine
pilot issue and reiterated that the focus should be boating
safety, not accommodating a special interest. He expressed
reservations about the proposed changes, particularly in light
of Mr. Whalen's closing remark:
In closing we see no justification for the proposed
changes listed above and do not see any corroborating
information provided at the November Board of Marine
Pilots meeting that justifies or supports the changes
to regulation as proposed. At a minimum, the board's
yacht committee should vet this matter before further
action by the board is considered.
SENATOR WAGONER said he finds it interesting that the board's
yacht committee did not meet prior to the proposed regulation
changes.
2:59:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that it appeared that convenience
was trumping safety on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that he was not sure what was being
fixed, because it appeared that everything was working well.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI highlighted the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee's seeming universal opposition to the
regulation changes, and expressed curiosity about the next step.
2:59:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH explained that the next step is for the lieutenant
governor to decide whether to sign the regulation into effect.
If the committee believes that something needs to be fixed, it
has to be done by statute.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed that the committee was largely in
unison about the marine pilot issue, and questioned whether it
wanted to express uniform disapproval of the second matter as
well.
SENATOR WAGONER commented that he had experience in teaching
nurses and had no desire to tread those waters again.
3:01:01 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Agenda 3-20-12.pdf |
SARR 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
Agenda |
| Packet 3-20-12 MP.pdf |
SARR 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
Proposed Changes in 12 AAC 56.115 - Pleasure Craft Exemptions |
| Packet 3-20-12 PA.pdf |
SARR 3/20/2012 1:30:00 PM |
7 AAC 70.110 - Additional Requirements for Providing Alcohol and Drug Detoxification Services |