Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/26/1996 03:10 PM L&C
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE February 26, 1996 3:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman Representative Beverly Masek Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Brian Porter Representative Kim Elton Representative Gene Kubina MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation Hearing on Governor's Appointments: State Medical Board; Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, Board of Nursing; Occupational Safety and Health Review Board; Board of Pharmacy; State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners; Real Estate Commission; Alaska Public Utilities Commission; Alaska Workers' Compensation Board; Alcoholic Beverage Control Board HOUSE BILL NO. 73 "An Act relating to licensure of manicurists." - PASSED CSHB 73(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 432 "An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 73 SHORT TITLE: LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 39 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 39 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 39 (H) HES, L&C, FIN 01/16/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/16/96 2789 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 4DP 2NR 02/16/96 2789 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, TOOHEY, ROBINSON, BRICE 02/16/96 2789 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, BUNDE 02/16/96 2789 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 02/26/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 432 SHORT TITLE: VETERINARY LICENSING SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/19/96 2484 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/19/96 2485 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE 02/15/96 2772 (H) STA RPT 1DP 5NR 02/15/96 2772 (H) DP: JAMES 02/15/96 2772 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, ROBINSON, WILLIS 02/15/96 2772 (H) NR: OGAN 02/15/96 2772 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 02/15/96 2772 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE 02/15/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/26/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Staff House Labor and Commerce Committee Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 432 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3306 POSITION STATEMENT: Gave information on the appointment of Clair Ramsey to the Alaska Real Estate Commission. Explained HB 432. CATHERINE REARDON, Director Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110806 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806 Telephone: (907) 465-2534 POSITION STATEMENT: Gave information on the appointment of Clair Ramsey to the Alaska Real Estate Commission. Testified on HB 73. Testified in support of HB 432. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 426 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465- 3466 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 73. DAGMAR STRANAK, Owner Classic Nails Plus More 4900 Palmer-Wasilla Highway Wasilla, Alaska 99654 Telephone: (907) 373-8477 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73. STORMY JOSTEN, Nail Technician Classic Nails Plus More 4900 Palmer-Wasilla Highway Wasilla, Alaska 99654 Telephone: (907) 373-8477 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73. JO ELLEN HANRAHAN, Masseuse P.O. Box 240484 Douglas, Alaska 99824 Telephone: (907) 586-9562 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 73. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-13, SIDE A Number 001 The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Sanders, Masek, Porter, Rokeberg and Kott. Representative Elton arrived at 3:13 p.m. Representative Kubina arrived at 3:15 p.m. Number 066 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the committee would address the Governor's appointments to the various boards and commissions. The first board the committee addressed was the State Medical Board. Chairman Kott announced the people being appointed were Keith Brounsberger, Beverly Fletcher, Donald Hudson, Sarah Isto, Suzanne Lombardi and Donald Olson. He asked if there was an objection to the appointments. There was no objection. Number 149 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to move the State Medical Board slate of names. There being no objection, the slate of names were moved. Number 151 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment the committee would address would be Marilyn Homes to the Board of Certified Direct- Entry Midwives. He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection. Number 183 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to move the slate of one. Hearing no objection, the slate was moved. Number 214 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment the committee would address would be Josephine Malemute to the Board of Nursing. He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection. Number 245 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS made a motion to move the Board of Nursing appointee. Hearing no objection, the slate was moved. Number 266 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment the committee would address would be Timothy Sharp to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board. He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection. Number 317 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move the appointee, Timothy Sharp, to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board. Hearing no objection, the nominee was moved. Number 331 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment would be Chris Coursey to the Board of Pharmacy. He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection. Number 356 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move the nominee, Chris Coursey, to the Board of Pharmacy. Hearing no objection, the nominee was moved. Number 378 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment would be Leslie Schwartz to the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board. He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection. Number 389 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move Leslie F. Schwartz to the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board. Hearing no objection, the appointment was moved. Number 410 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment would be Gail Shortell to the Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners. He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection. Number 430 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move the slate of one person. Hearing no objection, the slate of one moved. Number 454 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address the appointments to the Real Estate Commission. He said the five nominees are Ruth Blackwell, Linda Freed, Eleanor Oakley, Clair Ramsey and Larry Spencer. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said he had raised question with staff about the time of Mr. Ramsey's appointment. There is an expiration date of January 31, 1996. GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Staff, House Labor and Commerce Committee, explained he has made inquiries regarding Mr. Ramsey. He said Mr. Ramsey was appointed for the dates indicated in the letter located in the committee packets. As far as he has been able to determine, there has been no subsequent appointment. As a consequence, Mr. Ramsey is not technically on the board at this time. Mr. Dozier said he made inquiries to Boards and Commissions as well as the House chief clerk. The chief clerk is currently looking into the matter. Mr. Dozier said he spoke to the Legislative Legal Division and their opinion was that since the expiration date of the appointment has expired, the individual was no longer on the board and, therefore, cannot be confirmed by the legislature. Legal counsel also indicated that the matter shouldn't be ignored and perhaps modifying the normal report to indicate that the committee has considered the matter and found that the individual is not on the board and is not available for confirmation pending further appointment. Number 670 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would be disappointed if the committee took action that would in any way embarrass Mr. Ramsey. He noted Mr. Ramsey is one of the more outstanding practitioners of the real estate profession in the state of Alaska. He said he thinks the committee would be doing the state and the people a disservice if the appointment matter wasn't cleared up procedurally. He said he would like to hear from the Administration. Number 758 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said Mr. Dozier has brought the issue to her attention. She informed the committee she has called the Governor's office and they explained that when Mr. Ramsey was appointed, it was to complete the remainder of a term which ended on the January 31, 1996. At this point, the intention is to reappoint him for another term, but the Governor hadn't actually taken that action yet. She suggested setting the issue aside until the following week. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved that the appointments be set aside. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the Real Estate Commission appointments would be set aside waiting further clarification from the Governor's office on his intent. Number 823 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next slate of names up for confirmation would be Sam Cotten and G. Nanette Thompson to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. He asked if there was an objection to the appointments. There was no objection. Number 950 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the slate of Sam Cotten and G. Nanette Thompson to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was objection. Hearing none, that slate was moved. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address the appointments of Harriet Lawlor, Nancy Ridgley and James Williams to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. He asked if there was an objection to those appointments. Number 874 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted one of the appointments was a short appointment good until July 1, 1996. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS moved that the three nominees to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board be moved. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered. Number 911 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee the last appointments the committee would address would be Joseph Thomas, Jr., Operator/Owner, Triangle Club and Owner, Alaska Cache Liquor from Juneau, to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move Joseph Thomas to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. There being no objection, that member was moved. CHAIRMAN KOTT said in accordance with AS 39.05.080, and a subsequent statute, signing off the sheet on each one of these members does not reflect an intent by any of the members to vote for or against these individuals during any further sessions for the purposes of confirmation. HB 73 - LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS Number 1039 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee the next order of business would be HB 73, "An Act relating to licensure of manicurists," by Representative Brice. Number 1061 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, Sponsor of HB 73, explained the issue was brought to his attention by some of his constituents in Fairbanks who pointed out the fact that Alaska is one of only eight states, nationally, that in no way regulates or oversees the practice of manicure. He indicated this does pose a fairly important public health question that must be addressed. Representative Brice indicated in the committee file there is some information from the Federal Drug Administration relating to manicuring and some of the associated public health risks. He said his concern is that any time you're taking sharp objects and playing with people's fingers and toes, at some point in time there is the opportunity to have problems, and in some cases it could be extreme. Representative Brice noted there have been cases reported to him, anecdotally, about people's fingernails and fingers getting disturbed. This was because the practices of people doing the procedures were in no way over looked. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained HB 73 would provide the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers to establish the standards and approve the licensing of people who do practice manicure. He pointed out a couple of issues have been brought to his attention. There is one amendment relating to the clarity of the definition of "manicuring," which would be on page 6, lines 20 through 24. It wasn't clear as to what was and wasn't exempt. The proposed amendment clarifies that issue. There was also a question raised relating to a person who specializes in foot massage and if they had to clip toenails, would they be prohibited. Representative Brice said he isn't sure of the answer, but it might be an issue the committee would want to take up. Number 1294 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Representative Brice if he would object to a motion to change "manicurist" to "personicurist." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks "manicurist" would be the proper term. CHAIRMAN KOTT said generally speaking, he thinks there are more women who are manicurists. Number 1367 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the figures in the HESS fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked that questions relating to the fiscal note be referred to the director of the Division of Occupational Licensing. Number 1433 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the proposed amendment had been offered. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that it hasn't. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said as a spouse of a masseuse, he is concerned that people who do massage or offer massage therapy are now going to have to be licensed manicurists. He said he doesn't know what massage of the hand or feet for cosmetic purposes may mean. It would seem that there is a question that somebody who is doing massage is now going to have to become a licensed manicurist. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that was a question committee staff had brought to him. In response, the amendment was written which states, "notwithstanding (A) of this paragraph,". In other words, they would not be considered manicurists if they're massaging both hands or feet solely for the treatment of disease of physical or mental ailments. He said he would suggest that a massage might be considered the treatment of a mental ailment. Number 1544 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he goes to a masseuse and not for treatment of disease or physical or mental ailments. He goes because it makes him feel good. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested deleting that section. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he wouldn't have an objection if that is something the committee finds appropriate. There are major questions that still need to be addressed. Number 1626 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was not aware that there were criminal sanctions in this area of the law. He said what he would suggest, if the bill is adopted, is that someone who gives a massage for money without a license is subject to criminal prosecution. He said he can't see what the big public safety issue is with a hang nail. It is ridiculous to make it a criminal sanction. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he would agree that it is not that big of a public safety issue. He said he would agree that it is more of a public health issue. Representative Brice said, "Having discussed the issue with numerous operators, it can and does regularly have problems -- or people, people do regularly have problems with what happens by the manicurist, or people who are doing their nails as it were." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if there is a significant problem in that area and he would submit that it won't be addressed by criminal prosecution. He said he doesn't know a district attorney in the state who would accept this case. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the committee is discussing Section 14 on page 6. Number 1703 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the bill would force people to get their permit. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER informed the committee he has a problem with having something in law that is intended not to function the way it appears to be designed. He said there would be a civil penalty rather than criminal prosecution. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said much of the licensure laws are like that. He said as a holder of a state license, he has been upset by it being there because if there is an accusation on any statutory or regulatory breach on the part of any license holder in the state, normally it can become a class B misdemeanor. Representative Rokeberg asked if there is anything in the bill that restricts him from giving his wife a pedicure. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated there wouldn't be a restriction unless his wife is paying him to give her a pedicure. He said he is concerned with money exchanging hands. Number 1871 DAGMAR STRANAK, Owner, Classic Nails Plus More, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. Ms. Stranak said she would address the issue of a hang nail not being a primary cause or major concern. She said she would do this in direct correlation with some of the clients she has who are diabetic. Ms. Stranak said if a hang nail gets terribly infected and isn't taken care of, people could be looking at the loss of a limb because they have no proper circulation whether it is to their hands or feet. Ms. Stranak noted she is licensed in New York, New Jersey and Virginia. She referred to massaging the hands from the palm up to the (indisc.) not (indisc.) longer than three minutes per hand as opposed a masseuse who spends ten minutes, if not more, on a particular extremity of the body. She indicated this issue is being confused. Ms. Stranak said it is not a matter of who has a license and who doesn't, it is a matter of going ahead and keeping the people in the public sector aware and keeping education above where it should be. There is a difference between a professional and somebody who is just doing it for the money they think is in it. Number 1965 STORMY JOSTEN, Nail Technician, Classic Nails Plus More, was next to testify via teleconference. She explained she will be using the term "nail tech" rather than manicurist because she believes there is a difference between the two. Ms. Josten said education is vital to every aspect of the industry and the need for continued education is most important towards being a safe and qualified nail technician. This issue must not be taken lightly, not only for the health of a client but for the nail tech as well. This can be broke down into several categories but, again, the key is education. A nail tech must know about the safety and/or hazards of the chemical she uses and the proper way in which to use them. Proper sanitation is a must. With the risk of certain transmittable disease such as AIDS or Hepatitis, even if there is only a slight risk, a nail tech must still exercise caution in taking the necessary precautions to avoid and eliminate these risks. For example, instruments that are used must be properly sterilized. If a client is cut with a file or buffer, it would be much safer to throw it away and dispose of it properly than risk using it on another client. A nail tech must learn the proper way to apply and use certain chemicals and products on the nails to avoid injury, chemical reactions and the possibility of a client developing a fungal or bacterial infection under the nail plate. A nail tech must learn to recognize a client who is having a chemical or allergic reaction to certain products. They must also recognize an infection or disease affecting a nail in order to avoid reactions. She should also know when to refer a client to a physician or dermatologist. MS. JOSTEN said those are some of the main issues. She stressed that without education of the following certain guidelines, a person cannot be considered a professional in this industry and practice as a nail technician safely. Licensing should be a requirement and should be broken down into three categories with different (indisc.) requirements for each. (1) A manicurist is a person who can preform a basic manicure or pedicure and apply polish to the nails. They can also provide the service of a hot lack manicure; (2) A nail artist is a person who can preform a manicure or a pedicure and also apply nail art to the nail; and (3) A nail technician is a person who can preform a manicure or pedicure, apply nail art and can apply artificial extensions to the nail with the use of different products and applications. Number 2092 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked what happens in a situation where a person may be a resident of a pioneer home and a nurse or a nurse practitioner does this on behalf of a client. He asked if they would need to have a manicurist license. MS. STRANAK explained the pioneer home in the Mat-Su area has gone ahead and looked at their nail technician to be licensed in another state before they can go ahead and work on one of their residents. Number 2122 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how many different types of chemicals are used that would be considered dangerous or hazardous. MS. JOSTEN indicated there are at least eight of them. She noted she has experienced problems such as allergic reactions around the finger tips with redness and rashes developing. Certain people are allergic to certain products. Ms. Josten informed the committee she has developed respiratory problems and asthma from breathing certain chemicals. There needs to be adequate ventilation. CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to when those symptoms occur and asked what type of solutions she uses. MS. JOSTEN said they are usually referred to a physician. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would assume a nail technician falls under the statute of manicuring. MS. JOSTEN indicated that is correct. Representative Kubina said they would all have to be licensed under this. Ms. Josten said that is correct. Number 2200 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came before the committee to answer questions on HB 73. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the existing board has an opinion on the additional responsibilities. MS. REARDON said the current Board of Barbers and Hairdressers does support licensing of manicurists. She explained the fiscal note reflects a neutral impact on the budget gap. As with all of the programs within the division, the license fees are expected to cover the costs of the program. It becomes complicated because the fiscal note just shows the additional costs that the division will incur, but the actual license fees charged to the licensees also would include their share of the activities that the division is currently doing. The administrative and board costs are already being incurred so they wouldn't ask for more expenditure authority to spend that money a second time. She noted they will charge the manicurists a share of that. What will happen is the barbers, hairdressers and other licensees fees will be reduced a little bit because there will now be more people to spread out those overhead costs to. Number 2288 CHAIRMAN KOTT noted there is information in the committee packets which indicates that the board is in unanimous support of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4 of the fiscal note and asked if the indirect costs reduced to other programs is $26,538.20. He asked Ms. Reardon if that is what she is referring to as far as spreading the fees. MS. REARDON explained the very first year that the program is in effect, fiscal year 97 if it passes this session, the division won't charge the individual manicurists for the division's indirect costs because they have already included that in everyone else's fees. It's too late to lower them when they were charged the fees last month. It included money to cover the division's entire indirect costs. That is why they are only charging the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers indirect costs for FY 98. She referred to FY 97 and said they're going to get a free ride because there is no sense in over collecting, they've already been built into everyone else's fees. Ms. Reardon referred to FY 98 and said by then they would have hoped to have lowered everybody else's fees to compensate for this new bank of payers. The indirect costs reduced to other programs is supposed to be the $26,000. Ms. Reardon said you don't see the indirect costs on the front page because they're not new expenditures, they aren't going to hire any more bookkeepers, receptionists or directors. Number 2431 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the fiscal note is predicated on the fact that there are an X number of pedicure salons. One person on teleconference alluded to the fact that indeed there are going to be some nurse practitioners or others in nursing or pioneer homes. He asked if that would make a difference in the fiscal note. MS. REARDON said they had to make a guess as to how many manicurists there would be. It is very hard to know until you start licensing something. On the front page of the fiscal note in the box on the bottom, they guessed about 590. If that guess is low, then they will probably try to raise the (indisc.) or increase their expenditure authority to reflect exam fee pass throughs. [End of tape]. TAPE 96-13, SIDE B Number 011 CHAIRMAN KOTT said they essentially doubled the number of business licenses that currently exist. MS. REARDON said that is correct. She said if there is an individual business that does manicures, there is probably at least an average of two people. Number 031 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if this is annual license. MS. REARDON explained it is a two year license. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the transitional provision on page 6, line 28, and said there appears to be a grandfather clause but it is only 12 months. He asked if they are grandfathering people in that have satisfactorily completed 350 hours last year, but those same people would have to get a license the following year regardless of their previous.... MS. REARDON explained this is qualification for a license. You have to have done 350 hours within the past 12 months. You'll still get a two year license. She said it does grandfather them in as eligible to be licensed if they have 350 hours within the last 12 months, but the license that they then pay for now that they're qualified for will extend for two years into the future. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if they have to take the examine MS. REARDON explained they did and that is on line 31. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they're really not grandfathered in. MS. REARDON explained they don't have to go to school. She noted it was an incorrect term to say grandfathered in. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned whether there will be any exceptions for someone doing the work and not having to have a license. MS. REARDON indicated there wouldn't be exceptions. Number 103 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there was a reciprocity clause that would allow someone from out of state, who has taken a similar exam, to be grandfathered in the program. He questioned whether or not other states license manicurists. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that all but eight states license manicurists. MS. REARDON noted she didn't know the answer to the question of there being a reciprocity clause. Number 158 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thought a cosmetologist had taken various courses that have a higher level of expertise. MS. REARDON explained that people who currently have hairdressing, cosmetology or barbering licenses may be doing manicuring because it is an unlicensed activity. There is usually a little bit of manicurist training given, but it isn't required. They may have some training in manicuring. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned how the class B misdemeanor, being a sanction, would work. MS. REARDON explained it is true that almost of the licensing areas on licensed activities are class B misdemeanors. In some cases it is a class A misdemeanor. She said it is currently the same situation for barbering and hairdressing, concert promoters, etc. Ms. Reardon referred to HB 457, introduced by Representative James, and said it would give the division civil fining authority for all of the areas of licensing. If HB 457 passed, would allow the department to fine unlicensed people up to $5,000 and give them a Administrative Procedures Act hearing within the department and not have to go through the court system. She noted that is something the department supports. Number 325 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 5 and said it talks about the period of apprenticeship required to qualify an applicant for a license to practice manicuring which is 350 hours. He asked how the number 350 figure was chosen. Chairman Kott said the reciprocity probably wouldn't apply if we compared hours to hours from other states to our statute if it were to pass. He said he believes only 16 other states have a requirement for 350 hours or greater. Number 362 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said 350 is an average number across the rest of the states. He pointed out some states have higher numbers. He said out of 44 states, 11 require 350 hours, 11 require 300 hours, 1 requires 400 hours and 4 require 500 hours. He noted there is some background information in the committee files. Representative Brice said they want fairly high standards. Several schools already include 350 hours as part of their regular curriculum. It was a number that the schools approached him with. Number 435 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many manicurist schools there are in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he doesn't believe that there are specific schools. He pointed out there are specific federal standards that establish certain backgrounds as far as establishing appropriate manicure curriculum. It is his understanding that the schools do provide that amount of training prior to graduation. Number 515 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved that the proposed amendment be adopted on page 6, lines 20 to 24. CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move Amendment 1, 9- LS0358\G, Lauterbach, 2/26/96. Number 522 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he has two simple changes to the amendment. On line 9, strike the word "massage," and on line 14, strike the word "massaging" and insert "massage treatment or". He stated the purpose of the amendment is to make it very clear that massage treatment is not defined as providing service that would be provided a manicurist. Number 590 CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 1 is amended. He said there is a motion to amend Amendment 1. He asked if there was an objection to the amendment to the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he objects for the purpose of discussion. He asked if "massage treatment" is a term of art. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is trying to delineate to act of massage or getting a massage treatment is something that people often pay for. He pointed out there is a masseuse in the room who can answer whether massage treatment is a term of art. Number 649 JO ELLEN HANRAHAN, Masseuse, noted she is a licensed massage therapist in New York State and is nationally certified. She stated, for the record, that she works for the Department of Environmental Conservation and wants to be clear that she is not speaking on behalf of the department. Ms. Hanrahan said she agrees with Representative Elton's wording of massage treatment and said it is a term used within the field. She said she thinks it would be appropriate to say "massage" but "massage treatment" would do the same thing. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he wouldn't have an objection to not including the word "treatment." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that isn't what he is objecting to. He said he is looking at the existing language. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to the amendment to the amendment. Number 737 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT said hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew his objection to Amendment 1. Number 760 MS. HANRAHAN asked if this would mean that people who are in nursing homes will have to hire a manicurist to cut their nails. She said as a child of an elderly parent, she doesn't want to add to her health care costs in having a manicurist come in cut her parent's nails. She asked if somebody would be in jeopardy if they are a sweet person and sit down and paint her mother's nails. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is if the person receives fees for that activity or if her mother pays them to do that. MS. HANRAHAN questioned if it was on the medical record that cutting her mother's nails was a treatment that the nurses aid gave and charged it through Medicare. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG they would be employees of the state and would be acting within the scope of their employment, but they'd be under the statutory requirements. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't believe that we license employees of the state. Number 928 MS. REARDON said they do license nurse aids who work in licensed facilities which would be hospitals, nursing homes and pioneer homes. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks the issue could be addressed in Section 7, change the wording to read, "The board may by regulation create areas of limited professional licensing in the area of cosmetology and manicure. Any limitation shall be stated on the license." He said he would suggest that if somebody is coming into the pioneer homes to do these things for a fee that they do need to be licensed. On the other hand, it isn't his intent, nor is it the intent of the people involved with the bill, to stop a nurse from providing care. Number 900 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred the committee to page 4, Section 10, lines 28-29 and said the committee may feel easier. MS. REARDON noted the licensure by reciprocity is in Section 8, page 4, line 9. She said if you're licensed in another state then you're entitled to a license without examination. Number 955 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to Amendment 1. Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move HB 73, as amended, with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations out of committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB 73(L&C) was moved from the Labor and Commerce Committee. HB 432 - VETERINARY LICENSING Number 1001 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear HB 432 "An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine," was the next order of business. GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Staff, House Labor and Commerce Committee, explained HB 432 accomplishes three objectives. The first objective is that it modernizes the Alaska licensure statutes relating to the practice of veterinarian medicine. As the law currently stands, the licensure statutes refer to examinations that are no longer given. HB 432 substitutes the correct examinations. MR. DOZIER explained the second thing the bill does is it tightens up the meaning behind unauthorized practice of veterinarian medicine. MR. DOZIER informed the committee the bill makes it an unclassified misdemeanor subject to a $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail for the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine. He noted the bill has a zero fiscal note. Number 1098 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the bill also sets up a veterinary technician. MR. DOZIER answered in the affirmative. He noted he believes there are currently regulations that addresses technicians. What the bill does is requires that the technicians be licensed. Number 1129 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said the division supports HB 432. She said it is a compilation of things that the Board of Veterinary Examiners (indisc.--coughing) have changed. Number 1144 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the current sanctions are. He said there is a new subsection that adds a $10,000 fine on page 2. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't believe there are criminal sanctions. MS. REARDON said as she recalls, this has been one of the difficulties. There hasn't been a penalty for unlicensed activity. Ms. Reardon said strength is being added to the enforcement ability. She said she would try to provide a board member to speak to the issue as she doesn't have adequate information. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted he doesn't read Section 2 as being a prohibition about performing veterinary services without a license. It is for ways to try to pretend you had a license or used someone else's license. Number 1282 CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is not his intent to move the bill until the committee hears from someone that is knowledgeable of the bill. ADJOURNMENT Number 1310 There being no further business to come before the committee, CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.