NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Ruiz |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
279/aHBIC/aSPAC/aSFl#1 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Electric Certificates of Competence |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
NFI |
|
NFI |
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Regulation
and Licensing Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis of SFl Amendment #1
The Senate Floor has amended House Bill 279 to provide that persons enrolled in a electrical trade program approved by the vocational education division of the state department of public education are exempted from certain journeyman licensing experience requirements.
Technical Issue
Should the vocational education division of the state department of public education be the entity to determine whether the program is sufficient to exempt a soon-to-be electrical journeymen from these requirements? Would the Construction Industries Division be a better entity to determine whether the program content was sufficient to establish competency?
Synopsis of SPAC Amendment
The Senate Public Affairs Committee has amended HB 279 as follows:
Synopsis of HBIC
Amendment
The House Business and Industries Committee has
made a minor substantive change to HB 279.
The committee has stricken language in the bill relating to the submission
of proof of continuing education with an application for renewal wherein it
states that a “failure to submit the proof of completion shall constitute
grounds for suspension of the certificate of competence until proof has been
submitted.
The amendment strikes the suspension penalty for
failure to submit proof of continuing education. The amendment adds languages stating that a
failure to submit proof of continuing education will result in the application
of renewal not being processed.
Finally, the amendment clarifies the journeymen
to whom the continuing education requirement will apply. The original bill simply stated that the
continuing education requirements did not apply to “specialty
electricians.” The amendment reverses
the statement and makes it affirmative by identify expressly to whom the
requirements do apply.
The amendment does not state whether the
applicant who fails to include the proper proof of continuing education will be
sent notice that his application for renewal is not being processed, and
informing him of the reason.
Synopsis of Original Bill
House Bill 279 proposes
to amend the work experience requirements for certification as a journeyman
electrician doing commercial work from 2 to 4 years, and would required certain
journeymen electricians to satisfy certain continuing education requirements in
order to renew certification.
Enactment of this
legislation would enable
This legislation also
contains language intended to clean-up existing statute.
Significant Issues
The legislation requires
that an applicant take an examination approved by the Construction Industries
Division rather than pass an examination.
This language may draw concerns within the industry relating to the
actual score on the examination.
According to the Regulation and Licensing Department, the provision establishing the continuing education requirement provides that the certificate of a journeyman electrician will be suspended by CID if the continuing education requirements are not met. Suspension is problematic for three reasons: (1) before the certificate could be suspended there would have to be an administrative hearing pursuant to the Uniform Licensing Act; (2) if not renewed, certificates automatically expire after 90 days; and (3) the statute provides that a suspension can not be imposed for longer than 90 days.
Another concern of the Regulation and Licensing
Department is that if suspension language remains in the bill, the division
would be required to conduct an administrative hearing on each suspension,
which is costly in time and labor. Once the hearing was held, the Commission
would have to issue an order suspending the certificate. The Commission can only act in public meeting,
which typically occur once every two months. Suspensions can not exceed 90
days. According to the existing statutes (NMSA 1978, Section 60-13-28 C.), at
the end of the suspension, the Commission is to review the status and decide
whether to revoke or reinstate the certificate.
It is unclear whether the suspension language in the proposed bill would
preclude the Commission from revoking and, if not, what other action could be
taken to ensure compliance.