Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/16/1996 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 73 - LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS Number 1458 CO-CHAIR BUNDE passed the gavel to CO-CHAIR TOOHEY for House Bill 73, the Licensure of Manicurists. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Representative Tom Brice to give his sponsor statement. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the genesis of this bill came about while talking with the owner of the hair salon/school in Fairbanks where he normally gets his hair cut. After briefly researching the issue, it was discovered that only eight other states have no licensing requirement for manicurists. The requirements contained in the legislation are similar to other states and the minimum number of hours was derived by taking a median of what other states required. He said personally, he has not had bad results with manicurists; however, there were some public health issues brought to his attention which he felt needed to be addressed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Catherine Reardon to come forward to testify. Number 1629 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce & Economic Development, stated this bill adds another professional to those already currently regulated by the Barbers and Hairdressers Board. She noted that manicures includes pedicures in this legislation. HB 73 would handle manicurists licensing basically the same way as barber and hairdresser licensing. That means that schools, instructors and shops would be licensed and students would have to complete the number of hours of study that is determined by the board in regulation, as well as take an exam which she anticipates will be a written national exam and probably a practical exam, although that is not defined in the legislation and would be left to the board to determine. After the exam and the study, there would be a 250-hour apprenticeship at a licensed shop. The residents of communities with a population under 1,000 are exempted, as they are from the barber and hairdressing requirements. It would be a Class B misdemeanor to work as a manicurists without being licensed. Number 1743 MS. REARDON said there are no good statistics as to how many manicurists there are in the state since the department does not currently license manicurists. She advised committee members the department's fiscal note was based on guesswork and may be adjusted as she obtains additional information. The fiscal note reflects predominately exam costs. Since it is a national exam, she understood that the department would collect the money from the applicants and then pay the exam service $55 per applicant. She referred to the $36,000 contractual on the fiscal note and said 90 percent of that is pass through money that would be sent to the national exam service. The balance of the contractual money is to pay for exam proctors and exam sites. The assumption was made would be 590 manicurists. That number was determined by a review of the FY 95 business licenses which revealed 295 businesses licensed as a manicure/pedicure salon. The 295 was doubled inasmuch as the department estimated an average of two licensees per salon. Also, there could be full service hairdressing salons that have manicurists, which were not factored in. Number 1868 MS. REARDON said her testimony assumed the legislature or committee would include some type of grandfathering provision, which could be included in the amendment. For that reason, she assumed the 590 manicurists would take the exam and get grandfathered in during FY 97, which would increase the number of exams for that fiscal year. The department would have to pay the national service for more exams that year which explains why the fiscal note is larger in FY 97. CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the grandfathering provision and asked if the 590 manicurists would take the exam and automatically be granted a license or is it possible they could take the exam and find out they were not qualified? MS. REARDON said it is possible they could fail the exam. As she understood the grandfathering provision, people would be eligible to take the exam if they could demonstrate to the department they had practiced manicuring for compensation for at least 350 hours during the last year. Certainly, they could fail the exam, but her assumption was they would all pass and be licensed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if this would be a national exam. MS. REARDON responded the bill does not specify which exam the manicurists would be given; it leaves that up to the board. However, in the case of barbers and hairdressers, the board has chosen to use the national exam. It was her assumption that would also be the case with manicurists. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if manicurists licensed with a national exam in another state would still need to go through the process in Alaska. MS. REARDON said Alaska does have reciprocity as long as the test and licensing requirements were substantially the same. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she assumed the exam would be taken only once. MS. REARDON responded that was correct. The exam would be taken once and then the license would be renewed every two years. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked about the cost of the license. MS. REARDON said the cost of the license isn't determined in statute. It would work the same way as all the other occupational licensing programs; that is, they set it based on the costs. She noted that the fiscal note is all funded through programs receipts: license fees. It is hard to know how many of the division's existing resources would be used on the program. She referred to page 4 of the fiscal note, and said it was anticipated at the start up of the program they would charge $125.74 for a two year license and a $55 charge for the exam, which she reiterated was what the national exam service charges. The fiscal note does not ask for a lot of new resources for the Division of Occupational Licensing, so most of this program would be run by the existing staff. The staff currently documents how much time is spent on each program and their hours are billed to that program. Every two years, the time is calculated and charged to the appropriate program. Number 2128 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if individuals who put on artificial nails would come under the manicurist provision. In other words, is putting on artificial nails considered a manicure. MS. REARDON said she thought the rapid growth in the field of acrylic nails was one of the contributing factors to legislation in this area. The possibility of infection from having nails covered for long periods of time is one of the health risks of concern to people. She referred to the definition of manicure and pedicure on the last page of the bill and said she thought it would be covered. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to the requirement to present evidence satisfactory to the board that the person has practiced manicure for compensation for at least 350 hours and asked if that applied to a continued license also. MS. REARDON said that was the grandfathering provision. For example, an individual who puts on acrylic nails would be required to present evidence to the board which documented they had been doing that for money for one year. That evidence would have to be presented again at the time of renewal of the license. It allows a way to get the current workers in without having to go back to school. TAPE 96-2, SIDE A Number 001 SARA EDDING, Owner, New Concepts Beauty School, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that she has worked with Representative Brice on this issue for the last couple of years. She believes the public is being mislead by assuming that a manicurist or a nail technician working in a business has been properly trained to protect the client's health and safety. She has received calls from people who want to know who they can contact to report or discuss injuries they received from an untrained individual. She pointed out there are a number of individuals practicing this trade who are trained and want to be protected under the state licensing provision. Ms. Edding stated she does intend to develop a curricula which will meet the state requirements. Number 187 MARI ANN STOEFFEL, Member, Barbers and Hairdressers Board, testified from Mat-Su, and referenced a letter she had written to Representative Brice which basically stated the board is in unanimous agreement to regulate manicurists. She said in the process of manicuring, there is the possibility of injury where blood is drawn from using the instruments. She asked the committee to give serious consideration to regulating manicurists; not for additional revenues, but because it is a serious concern to the public. CO-CHAIR BUNDE referenced the changes in health care in the recent past and assumed that acrylic nails were relatively new. He asked if manicurists are re-tested when they are re-licensed as far as update of the art. MS. STOEFFEL pointed out that currently manicurists have not been tested, but if there was some new development and there was a need, they would certainly communicate that. She is fairly familiar with the national hairdressing authority (indisc.), and assumes that manicurists would be the same in that sanitation is paramount in these exams. Students are examined very carefully and very extensively in the sanitation process. CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that under this legislation, manicurists are not re-tested when they are re-licensed. MS. STOEFFEL said the primary objective of this legislation is to get the trade regulated and under the regulations of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to some of the concerns expressed by Co-Chair Bunde and said through the licensing of manicurists, a data base would be established by which new information could be distributed. He said the idea of continuing education is certainly one that could be looked at. On the other hand, making sure that manicurists are aware of new issues is an area that could be addressed by the board, and they would have the information available to do that. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Representative Brice if he wanted to move his amendment? REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested first hearing the rest of the testimony. SUNDAE GRIFFIN, Nail Boutique, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She referenced page 6, line 20, and suggested that "affixing by artificial means for the addition to or extension of natural nail" be inserted after the word cleansing. The application of artificial nails would be added in, just as pedicuring was included. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY suggested that Representative Brice look at including that in the new amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he would discuss the issue and work on some possible language to be brought back before the committee. Number 610 SUNDAE RAGSDALE, Owner, Pretty Fingers, testified from Fairbanks. She commented that often times clients, particularly new clients, coming to her shop give her a questioning look when she asks them to cleanse their hands before she starts the services. She mentioned there are a lot of things that unlicensed people do, but didn't want to go in to all the details. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY suggested that Ms. Ragsdale contact Representative Brice's office.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|