Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/12/2000 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 34-BD OF BARBERS ETC/TATOOS; BODY PIERCING CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 34(FIN), "An Act relating to tattooing, body piercing, and ear piercing; relating to other occupations regulated by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; relating to fees charged by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date." Number 0453 SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS came forward to testify as the sponsor of CSSB 34(FIN). He said he would make some brief introductory remarks and then cover the highlights of the new proposed committee substitute (CS). REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for SB 34, Version V [1-LS0279\V, Lauterbach, 4/12/00]. There being no objection, SB 34, Version V, was adopted. SENATOR ELLIS explained: A constituent of mine came to me. She's a mother of two then-15-year-old girls, and she was horrified to learn that her daughters had received body piercings in what were described to me as very unprofessional and unsanitary conditions. Some serious infections ensued. It was a crisis within this family and, needless to say, the parents were outraged. I was disturbed and frustrated to find that there was really no recourse. We're one of the last states in the Union to have any health and safety standards or licensure procedure in place for this growing industry of body art; body piercing and tattooing. We have, in the work here, taken into account the health and safety issues, the transmission of HIV [Human Immunodeficiency Virus], hepatitis, syphilis, other infections that should be of concern to us all. We've taken our guidance in regulating the body arts from the National Environmental Health Association's Body Art Model Code and Guidelines. So, we've taken the best from other states and from this national organization to avoid some of the mistakes that have been made elsewhere. We're adopting the standard procedure for licensure and regulation here. We handle that in our state for the professions and vocations through the Division of Occupational Licensing to license practitioners and shop owners to ensure that they have the knowledge and good practice of sanitation, aseptic techniques, sterilization and aftercare procedures to prevent transmission of disease or other injury to the consumer. We're also using the standard practice of having the Division of Environmental Health regulate the proper sterilization of equipment and inspection of the licensed facilities. And, again, Alaska is one of the last states to address this important public health issue. In fact, there are some good operators in our state and there are some bad operators, and we're interested in making sure that the public health is protected. Number 0654 Now, for a quick summary of the changes. ... I'm skipping around a bit, but there are some requests from the Division of Occupational Licensing that are of a technical nature and housekeeping nature that can be explained by the division director. There are also changes here in the committee substitute [Version V] that were requested by the industry. I'll mention one specific example. There's a woman in Fairbanks who heard about this bill. She practices what we're calling permanent coloring. Some people have referred to that as cosmetic tattooing. It's a growing thing in our country. There's one person we know of in Alaska that practices this, and without this committee substitute, she would be operating outside of the law. So, permanent coloring referenced here in the CS relates to the experience in Oregon, their statutes that have been received very well for the license of permanent coloring as part of body arts. There also were some other industry requests from the legitimate operators in terms of training and apprenticeships. That's a complicated issue; how long people should apprentice for body piercing and tattooing and we're leaving that up to the board to decide the correct number of hours for those different situations. The industry also wants to be able to hold conventions, or get-togethers, where they talk to each other about the best practices in terms of sanitation and other considerations, and we wanted to make sure that they, the folks who get together for the conventions, are licensed and that the premises are sanitary for these get togethers of folks in the industry. There was also an industry request to modify the definition of tattoo, and we've taken the standard definition there, as well. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I do have a staff member with me who's an expert in these details and, again, Catherine Reardon is here from the Division of Occupational Licensing, and I know there's a representative from DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation]. Number 0789 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what the difference is between tattooing and permanent coloring. She wondered, "They're both through injection or through a needle, aren't they?" SENATOR ELLIS responded that they are. The cosmetic tattooing is being referred to as permanent coloring, but it is the same procedure as tattooing. Permanent coloring entails permanent eye lining, eyebrows, blush, etcetera. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO wondered: Senator Ellis, going through the Senate committee meeting minutes, there was a question about creating an "under 18, you had to get permission." Was there any further discussion on that? SENATOR ELLIS indicated there were some folks concerned, and a number of suggestions were incorporated into the final Senate version of the bill. One of those concerns dealt with parental permission to do body piercing and tattooing. The national industry standard was adopted, which states that no one under the age of 18 can be tattooed because it is a permanent procedure. He explained: It's a permanent situation, and the standard industry practice says no one under 18 is tattooed by legitimate operators in our state today. The illegitimate operators do tattoo people under 18, and that's what led to the outraged parents. SENATOR ELLIS said body piercing is a serious procedure, as well, but it is not permanent. People under the age of 18 can be body- pierced with the permission of their parents. People between the ages of 15 and 18 can, in the presence of a parent or legal guardian, receive a body piercing. Under the age of 15, body piercing is not allowed. Currently, the largest tattoo artist in Anchorage, Larry's Tattoo, tattoos over 10,000 people a year. The owner of Larry's Tattoo has his employees licensed in Hawaii because he is committed to high industry standards and public safety. Number 0988 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked, "When I was younger, we would go over to somebody's house and take a raw potato and a needle and pierce your girlfriend's ear. What does that do to those slumber parties?" SENATOR ELLIS said that is an excellent question. People are being allowed to continue to do the ear piercings. Piercing of the lobe and outer cartilage of the ear continues to be legal. He added: The choice that we've made here in this legislation is that there are a limited number of people who do body piercing in Alaska, but there's literally thousands of retail stores and jewelry stores that do the ear piercing when you buy jewelry at their retail outlet across the state. ... Those piercings are usually done with the guns. We are giving DEC the authority, on a complaint-driven basis, to inspect those premises to make sure that the piercing guns are sanitized to a certain level of public health standards. But if people want to their own tattooing [piercing] on their ears, that remains legal. It's sometimes called "hacking and scratching" when people do this to themselves and it's not for profit. That will continue to be a legal practice in Alaska. But with the guns, we're not saying that the folks who operate the guns in the retail have to go through the apprenticeship process and be licensed. The gun has to be sanitized, and DEC can inspect them to see that they're clean, if there are any complaints that arise. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI wondered if there is any penalty if the guns are not clean. SENATOR ELLIS responded that DEC will develop regulations under this legislation in order to cover those health standards. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said: A number of us were attending an Anchorage caucus a month or so ago in Anchorage. There was a witness that brought this subject up to the Anchorage caucus because he was a sufferer of hepatitis C. He indicated that he had contracted the disease from tattooing. It really hit ... home because I have a brother-in-law that's basically dying of hepatitis C and the treatment is not working. ... Do you have any comments on that? SENATOR ELLIS replied that it is a very serious concern, which is why the Alaska Hepatitis C coalition is in support of this bill [letter included in bill packet]. Hepatitis is one of the biggest concerns. There are no reported cases of HIV transmission in Alaska. He commented, "The good operators are very quick to point that out. So, I want to protect their reputation." He indicated this bill will go a long way to rein in bad operators. Number 1218 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said she was available to respond to questions. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the fiscal impact of the bill is on the Division of Environmental Health. MS. ADAIR replied that there would be some additional burden. She said: The fiscal impacts will be paid by ... the tattoo artists and the body piercers. So, our fiscal note will reflect interagency receipts. I neglected to include, in the last fiscal note I did, some minor costs for ear piercers. The cost there is going to be associated with public notice and just getting information out to what we expect to be hundreds of facilities that pierce ears, and the regulations will not be complicated. ... Representative Murkowski, I had my ears pierced exactly that same way, with a potato and a needle. It won't be complicated regulations, but we do need to really make an effort to make sure those people who are regulated understand what the proposal will be. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS wondered what the connection is between this bill and the environment. MS. ADAIR explained that DEC deals with issues related to environmental health as well as the resource environment. The department deals with bacteria and the kinds of things in the environment that can affect public health. Number 1343 DAVID LLOYD, Alaska Hepatitis C Coalition, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated: I'm here today on behalf of the Alaska Hepatitis C Coalition. We are a grassroots organization [composed] of people infected with the hepatitis C virus, family members and the professionals who care for us. Hepatitis C is a disease that is at epidemic proportions in the U.S. There is no cure and no vaccine. It is conservatively estimated that one in 55 people [has] it. That translates to 11,000 Alaskans. We are not against tattoos but support a public health standard that would decrease the liklihood that years from now there'll be an outcry to demand why we knew of this disease yet did nothing to prevent its spread. The National Centers for Disease Control have established the correlation between tattoos and body piercing with hepatitis cases, and we are being presented with the means to bring Alaska alongside the other states that have enacted sets of controls to protect their citizens in the manner proposed by SB 34. For instance, North Carolina's legislation stipulates a method of infection control in which all human blood and bodily fluids are treated as if they were known to be contaminated with HIV and other infections that can be transmitted by blood. Because the disease may often have no symptoms for the first decade or two, many of the people infected have no idea they carry the virus. It is currently the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States, and each year 8,000 to 11,000 people die from HCV [hepatitis C virus] related disease. Unfortunately, it is estimated that the number of deaths will triple over the next two decades as large reservoirs of infected people become sicker. As treatment outcomes improve, however, experts predict that we have window of opportunity to turn those grim statistics around. Some of the doctors I've spoken with about this tell me the durability and the ease of transmission of this virus make HIV look like a weak sister by comparison. Its means of transmission cross into every demographic segment of the population. Some of these includes sports and body building through the use of injectable steroids, internasal cocaine use, tattoos, body piercing and transfusions - until 1989, the nation's blood supply wasn't even tested for it - as well as IV [intravenous] drug use. So, obviously, this bill will not halt the spread of hepatitis C in Alaska, but it is a start. And as a person who was infected with the virus at an Anchorage tattoo [parlor] in 1979 - which I assumed to be safe because of the license on the wall - I would like to applaud Representative Croft and Senator Ellis for their concern with the health and safety of Alaskans. Number 1523 GAIL MCCANN, Owner/Operator, Electrolysis Clinic, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She has been in business for the past 18 years. Since 1991, she has been practicing another form of tattooing called permanent cosmetics. It is essentially tattooing the skin. However, it has a totally different outcome and goal. She said: What I do with permanent cosmetics, there are what we call glamour applications, which have to do with enhancing the eyebrows, eye liner, lip liner, full lip color, blush. Then there's another aspect of this that deals with reconstruction of facial features for, say burn survivors and people that are afflicted with facial abnormalities and disfigurements. So, I didn't know about this bill until just recently and sometimes feel a little unprepared for what's going on here, so please bear with me. I do want you to know, however, that as a professional, I had to go out of state to come back with the pertinent and accepted credentials that the industry has to recognize, except we are not offering them to people like me in Alaska. So, we do have to seek outside education and testing to show that we are competent in our field. (Indisc.) plan was to go to Oregon and sit for the state boards so that, again, I could show that I am a qualified and competent professional in the application of my skills and knowledge for permanent cosmetics. I am glad to see that SB 34 is out there on the floor. It does need to be massaged and brought up to standard so that not only is it a bill that would protect the public, but will also guarantee that we are giving them competent applications of color to their skin, in whatever realm we're doing it. So, I am in total support of SB 34. I would like to see that only qualified professionals practice any of these devices, the figurative tattooing, which is what you would know as traditional tattooing, or cosmetic tattooing, which is what I primarily do, which technically includes, as I said, the glamour applications, repigmentation and camouflaging. Another one of the applications for what I do is to work with women who have had mastectomies who are not only having had a radical mastectomy but, in reconstruction, they no longer have a nipple. So, they would come to see someone like myself, and I would, through implantation of pigment, help to normalize the appearance of this individual. So, there are many applications that maybe you haven't thought about or just weren't aware of. And I hope that I've enlightened you to the point that it is something that, there definitely is an image situation here that needs to be dealt with. Through enlightenment and education and information, we can let people know what they should be looking for in qualified professionals, and what they should looking for, in order to not go to individuals that don't fall in that realm. I hope to be involved all the way to the end with this bill, and certainly would like to leave myself open for any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. McCann is aware of anyone else in Alaska who performs permanent coloring. Number 1710 MS. MCCANN answered that there are other people. It is a profession that is growing. She said it seems to her that electrologists, like herself, are naturally transitioning into this area and adding it to their repertoire of services. There are other people in Alaska that are practicing what she calls permanent cosmetic tattooing or cosmetic tattooing. She would like to see this term changed in the bill. She explained: There's a difference between the outcome in traditional or figurative tattooing versus what I do, which is, by our industry standards, called permanent cosmetics or cosmetic tattooing, not cosmetic coloring. I'd like to just see that wording changed from "cosmetic coloring" to either "permanent cosmetics" or "cosmetic tattooing." SENATOR ELLIS clarified: I appreciate the input, and I know my staff has been working with this practitioner to come up with some good language. We chose to take what Oregon had adopted in their statutes, the permanent coloring, because there are a number of things here that it could be: permanent cosmetics, permanent makeup, interdermal pigmentation, or micropigmentation. We thought that "permanent coloring" was the more expansive, inclusive term that covered those things that this practitioner may do or that some of the other practitioners may do. We wanted it to be a flexible, all-encompassing definition and not one so specific that it wouldn't incorporate other folks as body arts move on through time here. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there was consideration of using "permanent cosmetic coloring." SENATOR ELLIS said that is not the specific thing he considered. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. McCann if using the term "permanent cosmetic coloring" would make her happier. MS. MCCANN responded: We could be a little more definitive, I think. ... From the state of Kansas they have a very succinct and, I think, clear definition of what figurative tattooing is versus cosmetic tattooing. Cosmetic tattooing is to include eyeliner, eyebrows, lipliners, full lip color, repigmentation or camouflage. So, that encompasses it, I think, very well, rather than just "tattooing coloring," as it is in SB 34, simply because my industry has been in existence for probably close to 15 to 20 years, and our industry standards were describing ... having it recognizable, ... to go with either "permanent cosmetics" or "cosmetic tattooing." Even in the phone books there are categories under the definitions that I just mentioned. I think, for clarity's sake and for continuity throughout my profession, that would be more understandable and acceptable. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "I noticed, Senator, you have a license for permanent coloring and a license for tattooing, but you've got a joint definition. Is it one license?" SENATOR ELLIS answered that it is one license. There are two separate licenses for body piercing and tattooing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. McCann if she does figurative tattooing. MS. MCCANN replied yes. She said there is a difference and explained: If you wanted to transfer over and start to do what they call cosmetic tattooing, if you have not gotten the proper information about the anatomy of the eye, et cetera, it could be a problem. So, cosmetic tattooing takes your traditional tattooing techniques into a different realm, because there's just a little more information and education that you would need to know to be able to do cosmetic tattooing - although the application of the skills and knowledge is pretty much the same, when it comes to the practical aspect of the profession, both of them. In other words, we're not using guns, ... we're using machines. I'm using the same tattooing or implanter that somebody who's doing figurative tattooing is using. ... There are a couple of avenues that can be explored here when it comes to the equipment that we use. Basically, we're all doing the same thing by inserting pigment into the dermal layer of the tissue in the attempt to leave some permanent color there. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if Ms. McCann's testimony is that a person has to have more skill to be a permanent cosmetic or a cosmetic tattooing artist. He also wondered if the word "artist" is correct. MS. MCCANN stated that a person who practices permanent cosmetics is usually called a technician or practitioner. She said there is certainly artistry involved. She commented: As far as our skills, we require the same skills; however, you require a little more education and knowledge when you're going into the eye areas, because you haven't learned about the anatomy in your regular figurative or traditional tattooing. In that respect, it just requires a little more knowledge, which can be easily attainable. SENATOR ELLIS wondered what the suggestion is for the term of art to be used. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered that Ms. McCann's suggestion is to use "permanent cosmetics" or "cosmetic tattooing". He indicated that he earlier asked rhetorically about "permanent cosmetic coloring". There are three terms to choose from. He said he was a little confused by the definition of "tattooing and permanent coloring" on page 12, lines 26 through 29. He did not think a distinction had been made between the two definitions. Number 2052 SENATOR ELLIS explained that there is no difference in the bill between the licensing requirements because they are similar activities with the same health ramifications. He said: There would be an argument here if we brought everybody in about who has more training in certain skills and the apprenticeship requirement and on and on. That's not really an argument that's very productive. SENATOR ELLIS specified that his suggestion would be to consider adding "figurative and cosmetic" before "tattooing" on page 14, line 25, of the proposed CS. He wondered if he could have a moment to discuss this with his staff. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested having Catherine Reardon come forward and testify first. Number 2111 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic Development, came forward to answer questions on SB 34, Version V. She indicated the sponsor of the bill has been working with her to make all the necessary, conforming changes. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the barbers and hairdressers think about this. MS. REARDON explained that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, which would be overseeing this program, voted last year to support the concept. The bill puts one member of the tattooing and body piercing professions on the board. This will assist the board in making good quality regulations. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 2, subsection 2, which states: the department shall establish fee levels under (a) of this section so that the total amount of fees collected by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers approximately equals the total regulatory costs of the department, the board, and the Department of Environmental Conservation for all occupations regulated by the board. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it seems that a whole new area of regulatory responsibility of DEC has been added, but that the board ends up paying for it. Number 2180 MS. REARDON said she does not think of it as such a large thing. She expects a $5,400 fiscal note from DEC, which would ask the Division of Occupational Licensing to "interagency receipt" that money over, every year. The purpose of that money would be to fund DEC's basic adoption of regulations governing these professions. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "How many of these people do you think there are in this state?" MS. REARDON surmised that there are 10 to 25 establishments. She stated: It's mostly the regulation adoption process - you know, public noticing, advertising, all that kind of thing - I think that DEC's most concerned about. And there is precedent for this. For example, we "interagency receipt" construction contractor funds to the Department of Labor for their enforcement activities regarding those professions and electrical mechanical administrators. So, personally, I think it works well for DEC to have the responsibilities to adopt the regulations and this is a way of allowing it to happen and still have the costs go where they ought to go which is to the professions involved. This part of DEC is the part that does restaurant inspections, other kinds of health inspections. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that is what he is worried about. He commented: We see these bills all the time here in this committee, and we've got another whole entire department here where we're taking funds to be collected from the licensees and shipping them over to another department into their health inspector area or whatever. I'm not sure I'm warming up to this idea here. MS. REARDON clarified that she would be concerned if she felt that there were going to be a "blank check and ... there'd be no limit on what I might have to take out of my budget and be sending to my neighboring department." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected, "It's not coming out of your budget. It's coming out the fees of these people." MS. REARDON explained that she meant out of her expenditure authority. She said: When I send fees to another agency, it does count against what I'm spending. So, I feel comfortable because what's in the fiscal note is that they can receive $5,400. They can't suddenly bill me for $20,000. ... I'm sure that if there were any concern about how the money was being used -- I get audited on my fee-setting with some frequency. And so, people could look and see that, yes, indeed, the costs that I was getting billed and transferring the money for were related to adoption of the regulations for body piercing, tattooing and, probably, ear piercing. Number 2316 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that the present committee has to look at licensure costs. He asked again how many people were used to calculate the licensure fee. MS. REARDON responded that she is expecting 10 to 25 people. She referred to page 2, Section 2, and indicated this is almost identical language to that in the architects, engineers and Land Surveyors statute right now. This language says that revenue from the entire board area must cover regulatory costs of the entire board area rather than its being occupation-by-occupation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Why do the body piercers that are regulated have to pay for the regulation of the unregulated body piercers?" MS. REARDON said Ms. Adair could respond to that question. She said she understood the $5,400 was primarily for the adoption of the regulations. SENATOR ELLIS interjected: The retail locations that have the guns, that's a complaint-drive system. DEC, ... they'll do an annual inspection of the body piercing and tattoo shops, but they won't go out to every retail operation and inspect those annually, just if a parent complains about [that] they didn't a disinfectant of the gun before or after the procedure, they could complain to DEC. And DEC would have the authority to check it out and make sure they're cleaning their equipment. So, that was the balance we tried to make between the licensed shops and the places using the guns to pierce ears. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the fiscal note from DEC for $3,100. MS. REARDON said she believes there will probably be a new fiscal note for $5,400 if Version V passes out of the committee. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he has a concern about having the licensees pay for "stuff that's not in their area". He wondered if he is mistaken. SENATOR ELLIS said that argument can be made, but added: I would make the argument that the public health concerns here are great - and I know we share those - that the relative amount of money is tiny and that the good operators, the legitimate folks in the industry that have come to us asking for -- it's not very often that you get industries coming forward and [saying], "We want to be licensed and regulated because there's some bad operators out there." I think the good operators feel like they are tarnished by the bad guys that are infecting people, and it gives a taint and a negative impression to the public of tattooing and body piercing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that the first fiscal note is for $2,000 and states that there will be annual inspections of the tattooing establishments. [Senator Ellis's response was not on tape because of the tape change.] TAPE 00-47, SIDE B Number 0005 MS. REARDON stated, "If you're particularly concerned about the ear piercing portion ...." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected and said he is trying to look after licensees. He does not think they should be paying for any more than what they are already responsible for in their area. He said, "They shouldn't be paying for the DEC to inspect jewelry shops that are not under their licensure." He wondered if he is on the right track. MS. ADAIR said she had a question for Ms. Reardon regarding whether or not the fees for adopting the ear piercing regulations should be shown as interagency receipts or general funds. She said: For the same questions that you're asking right now, we do not intend to inspect ear piercing places. We may get complaints about them, and we will follow up on those complaints as we can. It is a low-risk activity. There is no known epidemiological risks that have been identified with ear piercing, even though there can be some blood that occurs when ears are pierced. It's just a variable-risk operation. It's not the same as body piercing. It's not the same as tattooing. This bill does require that we do annual inspections of body piercers and tattoo shops, and our fiscal note reflects the costs to do those annual inspections. I have gone through the Yellow Pages here in Anchorage and have found about five permanent cosmetic places listed in the Yellow Pages. So, our fiscal note will change as a result of that. We will have to add ... some kind of money for developing regulations for ear piercing. Number 0091 SENATOR ELLIS indicated the easy way to address the chairman's concerns and the $2,000 of extra cost for adopting the regulations would be to eliminate the requirement that DEC have regulations for the exclusive ear piercing shops that use the guns. They would still be on a complaint-driven basis, and DEC could go in and inspect those facilities for sanitary conditions, but would not be required to adopt these regulations. He stated: The way I got into this was the tattoo artists believed that the guns are not routinely sanitized to their standards, which is to use an autoclave, which doesn't exist in most retail stores or jewelry shops, and that those should be banned. I thought that was a drastic step that would upset a lot of people and wasn't really necessary based on the health risk, and that we thought DEC adopting regulations was the way to go. But we can address your concern by taking out that requirement of DEC. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked where that is referenced in the bill. MS. REARDON pointed out that it appears on page 13, line 22, of Version V. SENATOR ELLIS said "ear piercing" would be eliminated on page 13, line 22. He stated, "This would reduce things by a few thousand dollars and address the concern of the chairman." MS. REARDON commented that a conforming amendment should be made on page 2, line 21, by removing "ear piercing". Number 0162 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Adair if DEC is presently inspecting barber shops and hairdressers. MS. ADAIR replied that DEC does have a statutory responsibility for having regulations for those type of shops. Only complaints are responded to, and a plan is signed off on, for the initial occupational license. SENATOR ELLIS stated: That's a pretty easy way that I don't think would be a problem to address your concern. I do know that we at some point want to go back to Ms. McCann's concern, and I have a proposal for that, as well. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon what the biennially license fee would be. MS. REARDON responded: It'll be the same biennial license fee for all of these barbers, hairdressers, all of this. And there'll be 3,000 people we're talking in that area. So, I don't expect it to make a very substantial difference in the fee. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the "ramp-up" costs of the regulations are for the Division of Occupational Licensing. MS. REARDON wondered if he meant the amount of the fiscal note. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied yes. MS. REARDON responded that the division doesn't usually include the cost of writing regulations in its fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "So, you're just going to basically charged these people what the barbers and hairdressers are paying now?" MS. REARDON answered affirmatively. In further response to Chairman Rokeberg, she said it is $125 for a two-year license. There are 3,800 licensees, which is one reason the costs are low. The amount of $3,000 is being requested to cover the costs of printing, postage, communications and advertising. The regulation writing would be "buried in there." The first-year cost being asked for is $15,100. She said, "It increases as DEC changes, then mine will be adjusted. So, now, I'd probably be asking for $18,500." Number 0281 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 4, on page 3, line 17. She noted that this section gives the board the authority to develop oral and written instructions. She wondered what the benefit is of having oral instruction. SENATOR ELLIS said he believes this language was taken from other states. It is pretty standard language in other states and allows the board to develop the best ways to provide information. He added, "It's flexible language for it to be an oral or written instructions. I suppose we could tighten it down, if you so choose." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI responded: Every time I see the word "oral" instruction or giving somebody the leeway to not put it down in writing, there's room for miscommunication, misinterpretation, on down the road because you didn't have the requirement that it be put in writing. MS. REARDON said she believes these instructions are the notices and instructions that the practitioners need to be posting and giving to their clients. Number 0389 MR. LLOYD noted that quite often a person will go 20 years before the disease manifests any symptoms. There is a longevity factor of the virus also. He explained: Outside of the human body, most viruses die almost immediately, whereas this virus can live for up to five days. It has a dormant state in dried blood. The point is, is that the inside of the tattooist guns or the ear piercing equipment could possibly be infected. There is some spore testing equipment that's available through the medical community, and I was wondering if, perhaps, the health department would be the appropriate community to address that concern. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he agrees with Mr. Lloyd's comments. He stated, "You should leave the regulatory DEC on the ear piercing, but don't charge the licensees for it. Can you do that? Would that create another separate GF [general fund] fiscal note?" SENATOR ELLIS replied yes. He indicated he has been under pretty clear instructions from majority members to make these things pay for themselves. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the licensees benefit greatly by having that oversight because it provides a lot of confidence from the community. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said no, it is just the opposite. He is concerned about public health. Number 0507 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA wondered, "If you're concerned with the public health, what is the cost on this again?" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that he is talking about having licensees paying for DEC to inspect unlicensed premises or jewelry shops that pierce ears. He does not think it is fair to ask them to pay for a duty that should be the state's duty. He pointed out that Senator Ellis is correct that it causes a dilemma. Number 0535 SENATOR ELLIS indicated that they got to the point of having the ear piercing shops in the bill and not going through the premises and not being licensed, but being under DEC's regulation. It does cost a little bit of money. He does not mind its being general fund money since it is only a few thousand dollars, and he hopes that a few thousand dollars would not kill the whole bill. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said they could redraft it like that. He recommended that Senator Ellis bring it up in the House Finance Committee if he comes up against resistance. SENATOR ELLIS responded that he would be happy to do that. He indicated he wanted to revisit Ms. McCann's concern. He referred to page 14, line 25, and asked whether adding the word "cosmetic" between the words "permanent coloring" - so that it would read "permanent cosmetic coloring" - would satisfy her concern. MS. MCCANN responded that they could just remove the word "coloring", so that it would read "permanent cosmetics" or it could just read "cosmetic tattooing." She said for them, it has to with the industry standard. SENATOR ELLIS responded: We're up against a drafter who insists on ... a gerund: "tattooing and permanent cosmetic coloring". We can't say "tattooing and permanent cosmetics" in this sentence, unless we want to have that. So, Ms. McCann is putting forward her opinion. I'm trying to accommodate the drafter and Ms. McCann in the way this should be stated. Otherwise, it'll be the subject of a Revisor's bill next year, and I think we should avoid that if possible. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified for Ms. McCann that the legislature has a drafting manual on how to use the English language to put laws together. They have to put an "ing" on the end of it. MS. MCCANN stated that it would satisfy her to see the bill get passed, so for the sake of time and expediency she is willing to make that concession. SENATOR ELLIS reiterated that the suggestion before the committee is to change the wording to "tattooing and permanent cosmetic coloring" throughout the bill. He said he appreciates Ms. McCann's input, but it is hard to balance all of the issues. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt the conceptual Amendment 1, to place "permanent cosmetic coloring" throughout the bill where "permanent coloring" currently exists. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. SENATOR ELLIS indicated there should be a conceptual amendment with regard to the fees. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 2: "the fees for that are not paid for by the licensees' general fund obligation for the DEC inspection of the non-licensed ear piercing establishments." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked about authority for inspection fees for DEC. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that they already have it. JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, restated conceptual Amendment 2: "inspections of the non-licensed ear piercing establishments will be paid by the general fund." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There being none, conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 3, to delete "oral and" from line 17, page 3. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 0801 MS. REARDON indicated that as part of Amendment 3, a conforming amendment would be needed on page 11, line 9. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 3 to also change the wording on page 11, line 9. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 [already adopted] was amended. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move SB 34, Version V [1- LS0279\V, Lauterbach, 4/12/00], as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 34(L&C) moved from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|