Analysis

Topic: Plumbing
Sponsor: Representative Scranton
Date Introduced: March 6, 2002
Date Enrolled: December 13, 2002
Date of Analysis: December 18, 2002

Position: The Department of Consumer and Industry Services supports the bill.

Background: Although there have been laws relating to plumbing for 100 years, these laws have never covered the entire state. Public Act 222 of 1901 was the first of three state laws relating to plumbing. This act provided for plumbing inspection, examinations, licensing and registration, and regulation of plumbing and drainage work by local boards of examiners. This law applies only to cities and was superseded to the extent inconsistent with Public Act 230 of 1972, the Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act.

Public Act 266 of 1929 requires state licensing of plumbers doing work in cities and villages with a population of 5,000 or more and on multiple dwellings in any location. The act creates a State Plumbing Board. Provision is also made in the act for a state plumbing code and enforcement of that code. Although the 1929 act conflicts with the 1901 law, the 1901 law was never repealed. As was the case with the 1901 law, Public Act 266 was superseded to the extent inconsistent with Public Act 230 of 1972. Superseded provisions include promulgation and enforcement of the code.

Public Act 230 of 1972 does not govern the licensing of plumbers. As a result, the licensing provisions of Public Act 266 apply in certain cities and villages of the state and to work on multiple dwellings anywhere in the state. Arguably, the licensing and the registration requirements in Public Act 222 apply in those cities not covered by the provisions of Public Act 266.

There were extensive negotiations between affected parties when the bill was making its way through the legislative process. Initially, there were discussions regarding professional scope between plumbers and mechanical contractors. Many individuals have dual licensure and there are installations where both a plumber and a mechanical contractor will be needed. Later, the utilities raised concerns about how the bill would affect work now performed by utility employees. The well drillers also weighed in with a late amendment. The negotiations resulted in several amendments to the bill. The Department of Consumer and Industry Services also drafted technical bulletins on several subjects that were considered too technical for inclusion in the statute. These included replacement water heaters, process piping, pressure reducing valves on boilers, and water supply to HVAC equipment.

Bill Content: The proposed State Plumbing Act provides specifically for the following:

· Repeals outdated codes, namely, 1929 PA 266, MCL 338.901 to 338.917 and 1901 PA 222, MCL 338.951 to 338.965.
· Extends law to all parts of the state.
· Extends law to corporations, as well as individuals.
· More clearly defines the homeowner exemption. · Brings backflow and medical gas systems under the law.
· Requires licensees to be of good moral character.
· Protects business in instances where the master plumber dies or leaves the business' employ by allowing the business 30 days to find a replacement.
· Requires that the plumbing examination be offered in the Upper Peninsula.
· Mandates code update education.
· Prohibits dual licensing for masters who are also plumbing contractors.
· Requires direct job site supervision of apprentices.
· Allows escrow of a license for up to three (3) years.
· Prohibits masters working for an industrial or institutional employer from obtaining plumbing permits for another employer.
· Limits local registration fees to $15 per year.
· Requires carrying on person a license and photo ID.

Public Acts 222 of 1901 and 266 of 1929 are repealed.

Arguments For: The state's requirements relating to the licensing of plumbers are confusing and inconsistent. A new plumbing law is needed to provide statewide protection for the public without adversely affecting legitimate licensed plumbing contractors. Revising the plumbing law is also necessary to accomplish the following:

· To extend the protection provided by the licensing law to all parts of the state.
· To update and streamline current law, as well as to eliminate the provisions in the plumbing law which have been superseded by the construction code act and which create confusion among enforcement staff and practitioners.
· To strengthen plumbing regulation and protect legitimate plumbers and plumbing businesses by providing consumers with more effective recourse.

Arguments Against: The enrolled leaves unresolved various issues of scope between the plumbing and mechanical contracting professions. Certain work has traditionally been done by either a mechanical or plumbing contractor and the concern is that the new plumbing law will reduce the amount of work a mechanical contractor can do.

Response: Several amendments to the bill dealt with these issues. Also, the proposed technical bulletins should resolve any questions of overlapping scope between the two professions.

Supporters/Opponents: The proposed bill was ultimately supported by all affected parties, including the Michigan Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association, members of the Air Conditioning Contractors of America, DTE, Consumers Power. There is no known opposition.

Fiscal Information: Current license fees are maintained at essentially the same levels. No significant increase or decrease in fee revenue is expected as a result of this bill.

Administrative Rule Impact: The Act requires the Department to promulgate rules, in consultation with the Board, for (re)establishing standards for the following:

· License classifications under this act.
· The examination and licensing of plumbing contractors, master plumbers, and journey plumbers.
· The registration of plumbers' apprentices.