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.