MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE Sixty-eighth Session January 25, 1995 The Committee on Commerce was called to order at 3:35 p.m., on Wednesday, January 25, 1995, Chairman Larry Spitler presiding, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Chairman Ms. Maureen E. Brower, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Ms. Barbara E. Buckley Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. David E. Humke Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Analyst Barbara Moss, Secretary Iris Bellinger, Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Higgins, State Board of Engineers and Surveyors Jack Holmes, Washoe Co. and Nevada Ass'n. of Land Surveyors R. Michael Turnipseed, Nevada State Engineer Following roll call, Chairman Spitler opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 26. ASSEMBLY BILL 26 - Authorizes state board of professional engineers and land surveyors to adopt regulations relating to continuing education for professional engineers and professional land surveyors. Opening testimony was heard from Jerry Higgins, Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. Presently, Mr. Higgins said, six states had adopted continuing education requirements for renewal of certification, a process also being adopted in other professions. The Nevada Board wished to adopt these regulations in order to keep individuals in the engineering and land surveying professions up-to-date with the latest technology and developments occurring in the profession. If A.B. 26 was enacted, they anticipated they would be able to begin the regulatory process in about a year. Mr. Higgins explained the continuing education could come in the form of certifying workshops and seminars, as well as community college and university study for the purpose of receiving the required credits to renew certificates. The standard adopted around the country was about 15 hours of professional development in order to renew a two-year certificate. Current practice, he said, was to register engineers and land surveyors for two years, with 25 percent of those registered being renewed every six months in a continuing process. When questioned, Mr. Higgins acknowledged the aim of A.B. 26 could probably be accomplished without legislation, however, the Board's attorney believed it would be best achieved by seeking statutory authority. Although the whole process had not been completely worked out, Mr. Higgins said they assumed it would be refined once the regulatory hearings began. The Board would establish a policy for certifying seminars, workshops, etc. Ms. Tiffany recommended the Board establish a list of appropriate subjects when and if A.B. 26 was enacted. Mr. Higgins agreed. Additionally, Ms. Tiffany said she believed the Board should be able to make allowances which would be offered to people in rural communities. Mr. Higgins said it would be the Board's intention to give credit for publication of papers, books, teaching of educational community college classes, etc. It was important, Ms. Tiffany opined, for the Board to place this in writing in order to avoid guesswork. Assemblyman Tiffany stated she currently had a bill being drafted for recertification for teachers and she had been asked whether there would be a list of approved workshops or seminars they could choose from relating to their field? In response to Assemblyman Giunchigliani's question, Mr. Higgins ascertained it was current practice to renew each individuals registration every two years. The initial application fee for registration was $200 and for renewal it was $100. What the Board wished to see was that within the two-year time period, each individual would secure the 15 hours of continuing education in order to renew their primary license. Ms. Giunchigliani also asked if there was different course work for engineers and land surveyors. Mr. Higgins said there were two different sets of regulations. While both the engineers and the land surveyors were governed by NRS 625, each profession was spelled out differently. Mr. Spitler questioned if hearings before the Board would be open to the public, and whether the full membership would be notified by some means. Mr. Higgins said normally they published notice of their hearings, but if this bill was enacted he would expect more extensive notification to the registrants. It was Assemblyman Humke's contention the regulation process had a "low trust level." Given this, he asked Mr. Higgins if there would be any objection to placing amendatory parameters to A.B. 26. He suggested amending language such as "The Board shall adopt regulations calling for 10 to 20 hours of continuing education on a two-year cycle," and calling for the Board to certify presenters of individual workshops and seminars. In response, Mr. Higgins said in Board discussions of this subject, they would prefer to have some flexibility in the regulatory process because of the changing nature of continuing education in the engineering and land surveying fields. Also, with such a new process, it would be impossible to know the exact direction the process would go. Thus, the Board was very specific in that they preferred to do this by regulation rather than to place the requirements in statute. Mr. Humke suggested a solicitation of Board members to determine whether they could accept a reasonable range, such as a number of hours, or the ability to use a national certification standard. He said he would be much more comfortable if there was more legislative authorization and less giving over of the regulation drafting process to the Board. Mr. Higgins maintained it was a question of time. Legislative changes would take two years, whereas if the Board retained authority, needed regulatory changes could be made more quickly. Additionally, Mr. Higgins said, he anticipated there would be national standards set within two years. The Nevada Board wanted to be neither the leader nor the last state in the nation to enact continuing education. Rather, they wanted to be on the leading edge of technology. Mr. Humke remarked he would favor referral to a national standard which would be developed. Mr. Higgins agreed the Board would not have a problem with this concept. The Washoe County Surveyor and Secretary of the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, Jack Holmes, added the support of Washoe County and the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors to the passage of A.B. 26. The problem confronting the land surveyors and engineering community was that registration 30 years ago had left some of the industry with no requirement for further education. He believed a requirement for continuing education would expose individuals to current techniques which have been changing rapidly as a result of the electronic explosion. Also testifying in support of A.B. 26, Mike Turnipseed, the Nevada State Engineer, explained the broad discipline of civil engineering. The Board, he said, required that he, as a civil engineer, work within his area of expertise and his particular discipline. The passage of A.B. 26 would not only benefit his Division, but would also benefit the profession and the citizens of Nevada. No testimony was offered in opposition to A.B. 26 and with no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Humke and Mr. Higgins to work together to derive satisfactory amendatory language. If this could be done, Mr. Spitler said, the committee could plan to act on the bill early in the week of January 30 to February 3. ASSEMBLY BILL 63 - Revises provisions relating to qualifications of certain applicants for registration as professional engineers and professional land surveyors. Again coming forward to explain the intent of the bill, Jerry Higgins, State Board of Engineers and Land Surveyors, reported to the committee that A.B. 63 would increase the experience required from eight to ten years for an engineer or a surveyor to become certified if they lacked an academic degree. If an individual had attained an academic degree and taken the fundamental examinations, there was a four-year requirement. This bill had been requested in an effort to bring the engineers and land surveyors into conformance with the requirement imposed in other states; and currently, the standard in most states was ten years. Assemblyman Hettrick said this appeared to be a way of excluding someone from being able to become licensed, since the language on page 1, line 16 stated, "... active experience in engineering work which is satisfactory to the Board... .". The Board could already say eight years was not enough in certain individuals' cases. He also said he disagreed with the need for an additional two-year restriction. Mr. Higgins agreed the Board did maintain a great degree of latitude, but in many cases, an individual's experience was limited in nature. Engineers without an academic degree were examined from that standpoint; and to protect the health, safety and welfare of Nevada citizens, the Board was most concerned that engineers be able to do the technical job required as opposed to being a management-oriented person. The question was further discussed between Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Higgins. In response to Mr. Spitler's question regarding how many engineers were licensed based only on their work experience, Mr. Higgins said they had approximately 11,000 registered, with approximately 8,000 of them active registrants. Of the active registrants, approximately 1,500 were surveyors. Additionally, Mr. Spitler asked for the breakdown between those who had been licensed by virtue of an academic degree and those who were licensed by virtue of work experience. In reply, Mr. Higgins said he did not have specific figures, but he knew very few were licensed without an academic degree, and there had been none in the last three years. As for the issue of conformity, Mr. Spitler asked how many states required ten years. Mr. Higgins said he did not have those figures on hand, but some states did not permit registration without an academic degree. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that rather than placing the provision in statute, if the Board had the authority, item (b) on page 1, line 16, could be deleted, allowing the Board the flexibility to establish a requirement based on forthcoming national standards. She contended the legislature was oftentimes too nit-picking, and the provision in item (b) required a professional judgement to be made. Mr. Higgins agreed with the premise. Answering Mr. Perkins' question regarding job designations, Mr. Higgins explained there were two examinations. The first examination dealt with the fundamentals of engineering. This was open to candidates who had completed 90 credit hours towards their academic degree, a group consisting mainly of university students at the end of their junior year. When this was completed the student was required to achieve four years of experience before being allowed to take the professional engineer examination. California, he said, allowed the professional engineer examination to be taken after two years of experience. Discussion followed. When questioned by Mr. Fettic as to what another two years would accomplish, Mr. Higgins said this had to do with the reciprocity registration from one state to another. It was desirable to keep the statutes and regulations similar to what other states imposed so individuals had freedom to go from one state to another to become registered. Thus he believed it was in the best interests of the people he represented. Ms. Tiffany did not believe the issue of reciprocity was sufficient to change the regulation. Mr. Higgins, however, contended there was a growing situation in the United States wherein professions such as engineering, would register engineers from Canada and Mexico. In fact, he said, there was a requirement under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to register foreign engineers from those two countries. As the global economy developed, he believed they would be registering people throughout the world who saw great benefits in working in Nevada. Another question posed by Ms. Tiffany dealt with the Board's liability in the process of registering or verifying the competency of a person. Mr. Higgins assured her the Board had no liability as far as the state was concerned, nor would an individual be able to come back to the Board to question their licensing practice. Any state agency, he said, was limited to the amount of liability that existed therein. In response to Assemblyman Allard's question regarding whether other states had agreements which would allow an engineer to practice in another state without recertifying, Mr. Higgins explained the standard was that they must be registered in the state in which they were going to do the work. Although the proposed change from eight to ten years experience would not mean an engineer did not have to recertify in another state, Mr. Higgins assured him this would expedite the process of recertification. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the reference to years be deleted as she saw this as being under the Board's purview. The matter could then be in the authority of the Board allowing it to conduct its own public hearing based on whom they felt they wanted to bring into the process. Chairman Spitler noted the committee had before it two letters, one in support of A.B. 26 (Exhibit C) and the other, A.B. 63 (Exhibit D), from Max Montgomery (Cherokee Engineering), President of the State Chapter of the National Society of Professional Engineers. The Chairman explained Mr. Montgomery had been unable to attend the meeting due to previous commitments. Mr. Holmes came forward to offer testimony in support of A.B. 63. His perspective on the proposed change from eight to ten years was somewhat different, he said, and compared this to the process of obtaining a college education. Many candidates employed with a firm for many years, he opined, were exposed to only a narrow and specialized view of the profession. The addition of two more years did not prohibit an individual from working within the profession, it only meant they worked under the direction of a professional engineer or land surveyor. In response to Ms. Giunchigliani's question, Mr. Holmes maintained the additional two years would encourage students or individuals to obtain their license by attending college as this would allow them to be licensed in a quicker period of time and college would expose them to the entire profession, as well. He stressed it was important to remember that if a student did not complete college, he was still given credit for those years he did attempt college in order to get the full registration. Additionally, Mr. Holmes said, he agreed with Mr. Higgins that coming into conformance with other states would aid the goal of reciprocity. After further discussion, Ms. Giunchigliani asserted she did not see where adding years to required experience would achieve Mr. Holmes' goal, which was encouraging individuals to obtain their license through schooling. Ms. Giunchigliani also questioned reciprocity agreements between states. Mr. Higgins explained when an individual applied to practice in another state they were asked to identify their years of experience. If, in fact, the individual could not comply with that state's regulations, the individual would not be considered for approval of the application. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a copy of a reciprocity agreement or application. It was agreed Mr. Higgins would provide that. Assemblyman Schneider acknowledged a number of professional organizations were attempting to upgrade. He said he would be more agreeable if a time was set, e.g., four to six years, to obtain an engineering license through a college degree. Mr. Allard opined if an individual relying on experience to become registered, had worked in the industry for eight years and could pass the test, an additional two years should not be necessary. The only merit Mr. Allard noted was if the additional two years smoothed the path of reciprocity across state lines without being recertified. Mr. Holmes said the Board wanted to stay current with the nation by placing high standards on the practicing engineers and land surveyors. Mr. Allard questioned if there was a comprehensive plan in place among the states, or whether there was only an anticipation of future reciprocity. In response, Mr. Holmes said they were working with the Western Federation of Land Surveyors and with the American Congress of Surveying and Mapping in a move to ensure that Nevada was moving and keeping current with the rest of the United States. Mr. Hettrick asked if the terminology in A.B. 26 applied to individuals trying to get experience; and would the continuing education requirement fall upon the people who were trying to get the eight years (or ten years) experience as defined in A.B. 63. In reply, Mr. Higgins said currently the continuing education requirement would not be imposed until the individual became a licensed practitioner. The eight (or ten) year requirement would be tested by the State Board, and once an individual was a qualified, licensed practitioner the requirement for continuing education would ensure the person did not become stagnant or left behind in these fast- moving times. Given this, Mr. Hettrick suggested a change in the language of A.B. 63, page 1, lines 5 and 6, "... regulations adopted by the board, for registration as a professional engineer." Throughout the bill, he said, the reference was to "professional engineer." While he was quite in accordance with this reference, and agreed with the merits of applying it to the people trying to get the eight years experience, he questioned whether they should state "licensed professional engineers" in A.B. 26. Mr. Higgins responded the Board had been trying to move away from the term "licensed" over the years and preferred the term "registered." In essence, they did not license people to go into business; rather, they register them as a professional. The continuing education requirement was imposed only on someone already registered and for the purpose of renewal. Mr. Holmes added the seminars were offered to students, as well as unlicensed associate members, at a minimal cost in order to give them the opportunity to be exposed to the ongoing education outside their current area of occupation. Regarding reciprocity, Mr. Spitler asked if states looked at the statutory requirements as well as the regulations. Mr. Higgins said each State Board decided whether they would accept an engineer from another state for reciprocity. There was no reciprocity agreement between states. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned item 4, page 1, line 19. Did this in any way affect the language on page 1, item (b), line 16. Mr. Higgins said, "yes." If a person had three years of college with no degree, they would receive three years credit towards their registration. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the Board might want to increase the requirements shown on page 1, item 4, lines 19 through 21, and item 5, lines 22 through 24, which would grant an individual additional credit for the time period if the goal was to get them into more course work. Mr. Higgins replied a person could have four years credit towards their experience with no degree. Under item 5, they could have two years if it was a non- engineering course of study in the undergraduate program, or if they had a graduate degree in some other field they would still get two years credit. There was no testimony in opposition to A.B. 63 and no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 63. Chairman Spitler suggested Mr. Higgins work with the committee to provide the reciprocity agreements for Ms. Giunchigliani, and to address some of the specific questions posed by committee members. It would be his and Chairman Tiffany's intention, he said, to act on both A.B. 26 and A.B. 63 next week; and Mr. Humke would be working with him regarding a proposed amendment to A.B. 26. There being no further testimony or business to be addressed, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary APPROVED: ________________________________ Chairman, Larry L. Spitler ________________________________ Chairman, Sandra Tiffany Assembly Committee on Commerce January 25, 1995 Page