Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/01/2002 03:20 PM L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
          HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                         
                         April 1, 2002                                                                                          
                           3:20 p.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair                                                                                            
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair                                                                                        
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Harry Crawford                                                                                                   
Representative Joe Hayes                                                                                                        
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 399                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the  Uniform Mechanical Code and other safety                                                               
codes; annulling  certain regulations  adopted by  the Department                                                               
of Community and Economic Development  relating to the mechanical                                                               
code  that  applies  to   certain  construction  contractors  and                                                               
mechanical administrators; and providing for an effective date."                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 399(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 504                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the wages  of people working in the fisheries                                                               
     - MOVED CSHB 504(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 472                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to persons  who buy and sell secondhand articles                                                               
and to certain persons who lend money on secondhand articles."                                                                  
     - MOVED CSHB 472(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 443                                                                                                              
"An  Act retroactively  extending the  application and  licensing                                                               
deadlines and  amending the effective date  of certain provisions                                                               
relating  to regulation  of persons  who  practice tattooing  and                                                               
permanent cosmetic  coloring or body piercing;  and providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
     - MOVED CSHB 443(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 448                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to  establishing a  data  base of  residential                                                               
telephone  customers  who  do  not   wish  to  receive  telephone                                                               
solicitations, providing  that the  data base  be compiled  at no                                                               
cost  to   the  customers,  requiring  telephone   solicitors  to                                                               
purchase  the  data  base,  and   requiring  paid  solicitors  to                                                               
register; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                 
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38                                                                                                   
Relating  to  urging  the  United States  Congress  to  pass  the                                                               
Terrorism Risk Protection Act.                                                                                                  
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
BILL: HB 399                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE                                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF ADMIN REGULATION REVIEW                                                                           
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/11/02     2204       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
02/11/02     2204       (H)        L&C                                                                                          
03/01/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/01/02                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/15/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/15/02                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/01/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
BILL: HB 504                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:WAGES FOR WORKERS IN FISHERIES                                                                                      
SPONSOR(S): RLS                                                                                                                 
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/15/02     2547       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
03/15/02     2547       (H)        L&C                                                                                          
03/25/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/25/02                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/27/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/27/02                (H)        -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                       
04/01/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
BILL: HB 472                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS                                                                                      
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN                                                                                              
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/19/02     2315       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
02/19/02     2315       (H)        L&C, JUD                                                                                     
03/04/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/04/02                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/01/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
BILL: HB 443                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING                                                                                         
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOHRING                                                                                            
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/15/02     2288       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
02/15/02     2288       (H)        L&C                                                                                          
03/25/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/25/02                (H)        Bill Postponed To 3/27                                                                       
03/27/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/27/02                (H)        -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                       
04/01/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
CATHERINE REARDON, Director                                                                                                     
Division of Occupational Licensing                                                                                              
Department of Community & Economic Development                                                                                  
PO Box 110806                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0806                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions relating to HB 399.                                                                     
KRIS NOROSZ                                                                                                                     
Icicle Seafoods                                                                                                                 
PO Box 1147                                                                                                                     
Petersburg, Alaska  99833                                                                                                       
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 504 [Version L].                                                                
RICHARD MASTRIANO, Director                                                                                                     
Division of Labor Standards and Safety                                                                                          
Department of Labor and Workforce Development                                                                                   
PO Box 107021                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska  99510-7021                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions relating to HB 504 on                                                                   
behalf of the division.                                                                                                         
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist                                                                                                         
for Alaska State AFL-CIO                                                                                                        
710 West Ninth Street                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 504.                                                                         
ED FLANAGAN, Commissioner                                                                                                       
Department of Labor and Workforce Development                                                                                   
PO Box 21149                                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska  99802-1149                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions relating to HB 504.                                                                     
LAURA ACHEE, Staff                                                                                                              
to Representative Joe Green                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 403                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 472 on behalf of                                                                           
Representative Green, sponsor.                                                                                                  
DAVID HUDSON, Captain                                                                                                           
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
5700 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507-1225                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions relating to HB 472.                                                                     
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff                                                                                                           
to Representative Vic Kohring                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 24                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 443 on behalf of                                                                              
Representative Kohring, sponsor.                                                                                                
MARY SIROKY, Manager                                                                                                            
Information Education & Coordination                                                                                            
Division of Statewide Public Service                                                                                            
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)                                                                                  
410 Willoughby, Suite 303                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in regard to the public notice                                                                   
related to HB 443.                                                                                                              
TODD GIPSON                                                                                                                     
Two Moons Tattooing                                                                                                             
44720 Sterling Highway                                                                                                          
Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Asked who [HB 443] addresses.                                                                              
LAURA IVANOFF                                                                                                                   
Two Moons Tattooing                                                                                                             
44720 Sterling Highway                                                                                                          
Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on the grandfather rights                                                                        
relating to the regulation of tattooers and hairdressers.                                                                       
JOE SCHOOLCRAFT, Owner                                                                                                          
Two Moons Tattooing                                                                                                             
44720 Sterling Highway                                                                                                          
Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  During hearing on HB 433, testified that it                                                                
isn't fair to those who worked through the process [under                                                                       
SB 34].                                                                                                                         
JEFF MACAMBER                                                                                                                   
112 North Turner Street                                                                                                         
Fairbanks, Alaska  99701                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 443.                                                                            
GAIL McCANN, Owner/Operator                                                                                                     
The Electrolysis Clinic                                                                                                         
537 Lee Drive                                                                                                                   
Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 443.                                                                            
KEVIN McKINLEY, Owner                                                                                                           
Body Piercing Unlimited                                                                                                         
112 North Turner Street                                                                                                         
Fairbanks, Alaska  99701                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that HB 443 is a good thing.                                                                     
JEFFERY MARTIN                                                                                                                  
Muttley's Tattoo Clinic                                                                                                         
224 North Yenlo, Suite 3B                                                                                                       
Wasilla, Alaska  99654                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified that  he only wants  an extension                                                               
of the application period [as specified in HB 443].                                                                             
ANDY KOPCZENSKI                                                                                                                 
American Tattoo                                                                                                                 
HC89 Box 259                                                                                                                    
Willow, Alaska  99688                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified that he thinks HB  443 looks good                                                               
and offered that a six-month  extension of the application period                                                               
won't hurt anyone.                                                                                                              
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
TAPE 02-45, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  LISA  MURKOWSKI  called   the  House  Labor  and  Commerce                                                               
Standing   Committee    meeting   to    order   at    3:20   p.m.                                                               
Representatives  Murkowski, Halcro,  Meyer,  Rokeberg, and  Hayes                                                               
were  present at  the call  to order.   Representatives  Kott and                                                               
Crawford arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                
HB 399-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE                                                                                                
[Contains discussion pertaining to HB 436 and HB 437]                                                                           
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  announced  that  the first  order  of  business                                                               
before  the  committee would  be  HOUSE  BILL  NO. 399,  "An  Act                                                               
relating to the  Uniform Mechanical Code and  other safety codes;                                                               
annulling  certain  regulations  adopted  by  the  Department  of                                                               
Community  and Economic  Development relating  to the  mechanical                                                               
code  that  applies  to   certain  construction  contractors  and                                                               
mechanical administrators; and providing  for an effective date."                                                               
[HB 399  was sponsored by  the House Rules Standing  Committee by                                                               
request  of  the  Joint Committee  on  Administrative  Regulation                                                               
Number 0226                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, speaking as  the chair of the mechanical                                                               
code subcommittee, informed the committee  that by a vote of 2-1,                                                               
the subcommittee had amended Version F.   There was a new Version                                                               
J,  which the  subcommittee  recommended to  the full  committee.                                                               
Version  J  amends  AS  08.40.490(3) so  that  reference  to  the                                                               
Uniform Mechanical Code  is deleted and the  division is directed                                                               
to  refer to  the mechanical  code adopted  by the  Department of                                                               
Public Safety  (DPS); it  annuls the  regulations adopted  by the                                                               
Division of Occupational Licensing -  12 AAC 21.990(7) and 12 AAC                                                               
39.992(b); from the effective date  through December 31, 2003, it                                                               
permits applicants  for a  mechanical administrator's  license to                                                               
be tested  on either the  1997 edition of the  Uniform Mechanical                                                               
Code (UMC)  or the 2000  edition of the  International Mechanical                                                               
Code  (IMC)  -  applicant's  choice; and  it  adds  an  immediate                                                               
effective date.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  noted that the Division  of Occupational                                                               
Licensing currently  administers the  [IMC exam] and  would check                                                               
on the  costs to go back  to the old  [UMC].  He stated,  "At the                                                               
time, the contracted  test service only charged $100  for the '97                                                               
UMC  to be  taken."   He  surmised that  there  shouldn't be  any                                                               
problem with doing that again, but said it hadn't been verified.                                                                
Number 0435                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG moved  to  adopt CSHB  399, version  22-                                                               
LS1461\J,  Bannister, 3/28/02,  as the  working document.   There                                                               
being no objection, Version J was before the committee.                                                                         
Number 0467                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked  what will happen after  December 31, 2003,                                                               
because up  to that date an  applicant can choose either  the UMC                                                               
exam or the IMC exam.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG   explained   that  the   Division   of                                                               
Occupational  Licensing will  administer the  IMC [exam],  unless                                                               
the legislature changes that.                                                                                                   
Number 0505                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  said it wasn't  clear to her in  reading through                                                               
[HB 399] what  will happen after year-end 2003.   She asked if HB
436 and HB 437 were still being reviewed.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, "Section  1 indicates it's the                                                               
code adopted  by the  Department of Public  Safety at  that time,                                                               
and  then  the uncodified  law  in  Section  3 explains  how  the                                                               
process is  to be  done.  It  defaults in Section  1 back  to the                                                               
Number 0558                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it's "less than clear."                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  offered that  it is  because of  the way                                                               
it's  drafted.   He noted  that  the UMC  has been  taken out  of                                                               
Section  1 and  that  new  language has  been  added:   "and  the                                                           
mechanical code adopted by the  Department of Public Safety under                                                           
AS 18.70.080;".  Currently, the adopted  codes are IMC codes.  He                                                           
referred to  Section 3,  which explains  the timeframe  and gives                                                               
direction to  the Division  of Occupational  Licensing as  to the                                                               
election of either examination by the applicant.                                                                                
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked if the Division  of Occupational Licensing                                                               
had confirmed whether the 1997 [UMC] test would be available.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG  said   that  is   the  only   question                                                               
outstanding at this juncture.                                                                                                   
Number 0620                                                                                                                     
CATHERINE   REARDON,   Director,     Division   of   Occupational                                                               
Licensing, Department   of Community   &  Economic   Development,                                                               
informed  the   committee  that  the  division   has  asked  "the                                                               
contractor"  and  hasn't  received  an  answer.    She  said  the                                                               
Division of  Occupational Licensing was offering  the [1997 exam]                                                               
as recently as September.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  asked if the administration  fee for the                                                               
1997 UMC exam was $100.                                                                                                         
MS. REARDON replied in the  affirmative, adding that the division                                                               
also charges $100  for the IMC test.  In  further reply, she said                                                               
the contractor charges the division $100.   The fee was $75 under                                                               
the  last  contract.    The reason  the  contractor  charges  the                                                               
division  for  rewriting  the  exam  is  because  the  contractor                                                               
doesn't make enough from the $100 fees.                                                                                         
Number 0704                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG asked  Ms.  Reardon if  she would  "feel                                                               
bad" about  negotiating with the contractors  for re-establishing                                                               
the 1997 UMC exam for $100.                                                                                                     
MS.  REARDON  said  she  doesn't  have  any  problem  asking  the                                                               
contractors to do  that.  She speculated that it  wouldn't be too                                                               
difficult  for the  division to  offer  [applicants] the  choice.                                                               
There  is  the public  policy  question  for the  legislature  to                                                               
determine whether or  not the division should be  testing on both                                                               
[sets of mechanical codes] if only one is in effect.                                                                            
Number 0739                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI asked  when the  new, revised  UMC test  will be                                                               
MS. REARDON explained  that the test revisions  were triggered by                                                               
the division's  asking the  testing company  to revise  the exam.                                                               
The code updates  occur every three years.  She  said the initial                                                               
price  in  the fiscal  note  -  $40,000 -  was  a  result of  the                                                               
division's  asking the  testing  company what  it  would cost  to                                                               
write an exam for the 2000  UMC.  She speculated that the testing                                                               
company could  do that now,  but that  the 1997 exam  is probably                                                               
still available.                                                                                                                
Number 0797                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the  testing process to become a                                                               
mechanical   administrator  requires   a   one-time  test,   with                                                               
continuing education to follow.                                                                                                 
MS.  REARDON replied  in  the  affirmative.   She  added that  [a                                                               
person who lets his/her license]  lapse without renewal will have                                                               
to retake the exam.                                                                                                             
Number 0879                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES  stated his concern over  "what the practice                                                               
is versus what's  in statute," and said a lot  of communities are                                                               
currently  doing work  against  the statutes.    He offered  that                                                               
there is "a lot of work  being done under the ICBO [International                                                               
Conference of Building Officials], but  in our statutes we have a                                                               
totally different book that we have in law."                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  said the  IMC,  which  is part  of  the                                                               
regulations adopted by the DPS, is  now the state standard and is                                                               
also the  ICBO standard.  He  stated, "We are working  on another                                                               
bill to try to resolve this."                                                                                                   
Number 0960                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked  if there is "a lot of  work" that has                                                               
been done  using a different method  than what is in  the current                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG replied  in  the negative  and asked  if                                                               
Representative Hayes was referring to  work done under the IMC or                                                               
the UMC.                                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES replied, "The international."                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the IMC  has now been adopted by the                                                               
State of Alaska as the standard.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES  responded,  "In   regulation  but  not  in                                                               
statute.   Isn't  that  the whole  argument of  why  we have  [HB
Number 1069                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  moved to adopt  Amendment 22-LS1461\J.1,                                                               
Bannister, 3/28/02, which read:                                                                                                 
     Page 2, following line 6:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 2.  AS 18.56.300(e)(3) is amended to read:                                                                    
               (3)  "state building code" means                                                                                 
               (A)  for building standards, the standards                                                                       
     set out  in the  version of  the Uniform  Building Code                                                                    
     adopted  by  the  Department  of  Public  Safety  under                                                                    
     AS 18.70.080,  including the  provisions  of that  code                                                                    
     applicable to  buildings used for  residential purposes                                                                    
     containing    fewer   than    four   dwelling    units,                                                                    
     notwithstanding the  exclusion of those  buildings from                                                                    
     the Department of Public  Safety's jurisdiction made by                                                                    
     AS 18.70.080(a)(2);                                                                                                        
               (B)  for mechanical standards, the standards                                                                     
     set out in the mechanical  code [VERSION OF THE UNIFORM                                                                
     MECHANICAL CODE]  adopted by  the Department  of Public                                                                    
     Safety under AS 18.70.080,  including the provisions of                                                                    
     that code applicable to  buildings used for residential                                                                    
     purposes  containing fewer  than  four dwelling  units,                                                                    
     notwithstanding the  exclusion of those  buildings from                                                                    
     the Department of Public  Safety's jurisdiction made by                                                                    
     AS 18.70.080(a)(2);                                                                                                        
               (C)  for plumbing standards, the minimum                                                                         
     plumbing   code    adopted   for   the    state   under                                                                    
     AS 18.60.705; and                                                                                                          
               (D)  for electrical standards, the minimum                                                                       
     electrical standards prescribed by AS 18.60.580."                                                                          
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  explained   that  Amendment  J.1  would                                                               
clarify  those provisions  that  relate to  AHFC [Alaska  Housing                                                               
Finance Corporation].   Referring to AS  18.56.300(e)(3), he said                                                               
the amendment would adopt a  "generic" mechanical code and delete                                                               
the specific  reference to a  "version of the  Uniform Mechanical                                                               
Code."    He  explained  that  this would  default  back  to  the                                                               
Department  of  Public  Safety's  adoption  by  regulation.    He                                                               
offered that as a matter of  policy he doesn't want to leave [the                                                               
issue] out there as a regulatory matter.                                                                                        
Number 1080                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HALCRO objected  for the  purpose of  discussion.                                                               
He said this  amendment wasn't discussed in  the subcommittee; he                                                               
asked Representative Rokeberg to explain further.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  explained that  there are  some specific                                                               
references in the  AHFC statute to the UMC.   Through adoption of                                                               
Amendment  J.1, the  statute  reverts to  generic  language.   He                                                               
explained that if DPS were to  change the code adopted, then this                                                               
would  automatically change  also, without  having to  change the                                                               
statute again.  He noted  that AHFC had requested this amendment;                                                               
it  wasn't   discussed  in  the   subcommittee  because   he  was                                                               
approached by AHFC after the meeting on this specific matter.                                                                   
Number 1184                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  said it seems  to make sense based  on testimony                                                               
heard  from Mr.  Bitney.    She said  [Amendment  J.1] clears  up                                                               
ambiguity in this particular statute,  but asked if there are any                                                               
"loose ends" in other areas of the statute.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  responded  that the  primary  issue  is                                                               
whether  adoption   of  the  building   codes  should   become  a                                                               
legislative   issue  or   should  be   "bequeathed  ...   to  the                                                               
departments."   He  explained that  currently  the Department  of                                                               
Labor  and  Workforce  Development  and  DPS  are  both  adopting                                                               
[regulations]   under  statutory   authority.      He  said   the                                                               
subcommittee is working on trying  to bring that together under a                                                               
central umbrella.   He suggested  this is a  noncontroversial fix                                                               
to the statute.                                                                                                                 
Number 1276                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD offered  that  the  question is  whether                                                               
"we're talking  about the status  quo ... since September  or ...                                                               
before  September" when  the  UMC was  in statute.    He said  he                                                               
doesn't  like the  status quo  since September,  and he  felt the                                                               
[UMC]  should have  been enforced  until the  legislature changed                                                               
it, and not the state fire marshal.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  agreed,  but  offered that  this  is  a                                                               
practical  situation that  was handed  to the  legislature as  "a                                                               
fait accompli", and he doesn't like  that.  He explained that [HB
399] does  ratify the IMC  and not the UMC.   He agreed  that the                                                               
legislature  needs to  retain  its authority  to  select a  code.                                                               
Representative Rokeberg added:                                                                                                  
     What I  aim to bring out  to this committee is,  ... an                                                                    
     umbrella agency should have all  the codes together and                                                                    
     the  legislature  should   stipulate  what  codes  they                                                                    
     should be.  And the  cyclical editions that are adopted                                                                    
     should  be up  to the  ... administration.   You  don't                                                                    
     need  to  come  back  to the  legislature  and  do  the                                                                    
     cyclical updates.                                                                                                          
Number 1422                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI asked  if Representative  Halcro maintained  his                                                               
objection to Amendment J.1.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded in the negative.                                                                                
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that there  being no further objection,                                                               
Amendment J.1 was adopted.                                                                                                      
Number 1440                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG moved  to report  CSHB 399  [version 22-                                                               
LS1461\J, Bannister,  3/28/02, as amended] out  of committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There  being no  objection, CSHB  399(L&C) was  moved out  of the                                                               
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.                                                                                    
HB 504-WAGES FOR WORKERS IN FISHERIES                                                                                         
Number 1497                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced  that the next order  of business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 504, "An  Act relating to the  wages of people                                                               
working in  the fisheries  business."  [HB  504 was  sponsored by                                                               
the  House Rules  Standing Committee,  chaired by  Representative                                                               
Kott.    Adopted as  a  work  draft  on  3/25/02 was  a  proposed                                                               
committee  substitute  (CS),   Version  L,  22-LS1595\L,  Craver,                                                               
Number 1532                                                                                                                     
KRIS  NOROSZ, Icicle  Seafoods, testified  via teleconference  in                                                               
support  of [Version  L], which  would allow  Icicle Seafoods  to                                                               
recover  some of  the  costs  for providing  room  and board  for                                                               
employees in remote  locations.  This would  also standardize the                                                               
practice used  currently for nonremote locations  where there are                                                               
other [housing options] available.                                                                                              
MS. NOROSZ  addressed the concern  regarding the amount  of money                                                               
that might be deducted from an  employee's wages.  She offered an                                                               
example of [Icicle Seafood's] practice  in Petersburg:  employees                                                               
are charged $10 a  day to stay in the bunkhouse,  and $3.50 for a                                                               
hot, unlimited meal.   She argued that one  would be hard-pressed                                                               
to find  a comparable  deal anywhere  for that  price.   The meal                                                               
plan  for senior  citizens  in Petersburg  is  subsidized by  the                                                               
federal, state,  and local governments,  she noted;  this program                                                               
provides three  portioned dinners a week  for $3.50 a meal.   She                                                               
argued that the  price [Icicle Seafoods] charges  employees for a                                                               
meal is  "very, very reasonable,"  and indicated  Icicle Seafoods                                                               
loses money each year [with the meal program].                                                                                  
Number 1652                                                                                                                     
MS. NOROSZ offered that [Icicle  Seafoods] would follow a similar                                                               
pattern for  its remote locations for  a number of reasons.   One                                                               
reason is that  it is important for the employees  to have a good                                                               
experience  and return  as experienced,  seasoned employees.   It                                                               
costs more  to hire people  who leave  before the season  is over                                                               
and  to have  to  replace them.    She  said it  is  in the  best                                                               
interest of both the employer and  the employee to make sure that                                                               
"things are fair."                                                                                                              
MS.  NOROSZ disclosed  that [Icicle  Seafoods] is  in competition                                                               
with  other employers  to  find good  workers,  and therefore  it                                                               
doesn't make sense to charge the  employees too much for room and                                                               
board.   She urged  passage of  [HB 504,  Version L],  which will                                                               
standardize the  practice that  [Icicle Seafoods]  currently uses                                                               
in nonremote locations.                                                                                                         
Number 1737                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  asked  if  the  Department  of  Labor  and                                                               
Workforce  Development  (DLWD)  or the  Occupational  Safety  and                                                               
Health  Administration (OSHA)  periodically visit  any of  Icicle                                                               
Seafood's remote locations.                                                                                                     
MS. NOROSZ  replied in the  affirmative, saying she  believes the                                                               
DLWD is responsible for overseeing OSHA regulations in Alaska.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked how often this occurs.                                                                               
MS. NOROSZ  answered that she  doesn't know, but offered  to find                                                               
that information for the committee.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  asked if  OSHA  doesn't  visit the  remote                                                               
locations  because  the DLWD  is  in  charge of  overseeing  OSHA                                                               
MS. NOROSZ said she believes that is true.                                                                                      
Number 1787                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG,  referring to an e-mail  received from a                                                               
gentleman  in   Soldotna,  reported   that  some   canneries  and                                                               
processors will sometimes only work  the workers one to four days                                                               
a week.  He argued that under  HB 504, these workers could end up                                                               
owing  the canneries  for  room  and board.    He inquired  about                                                               
Icicle Seafood's hiring practices.                                                                                              
MS. NOROSZ reported that the  nature of the industry in fisheries                                                               
is dependent  on Mother Nature, and  therefore it is hard  for an                                                               
employer to  say when the fish  are going to arrive,  and in what                                                               
quantities.  She said [Icicle  Seafoods] wants employees to get a                                                               
lot of  work; as a  result, it tries  to not hire  more employees                                                               
than  needed for  the season.    The number  of employees  Icicle                                                               
Seafoods  predicts  it  will  need  is based  on  the  "run  size                                                               
prediction"  of the  Alaska Department  of Fish  & Game  (ADF&G).                                                               
She offered  that unfortunately  Icicle Seafoods  can't guarantee                                                               
workers that they  will work a certain number of  hours per week.                                                               
But when  there is a smaller  run, Icicle Seafoods tries  to find                                                               
other  jobs for  its employees  around the  plant -  for example,                                                               
doing  maintenance.   Regardless of  whether someone  is working,                                                               
that person  still is eating meals,  and she said she  feels this                                                               
is a reasonable expense to charge employees.                                                                                    
Number 1884                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  asked if [Icicle  Seafoods] outlines  in the                                                               
contractual arrangement with  an employee what the  costs will be                                                               
so that an employee will know ahead of time.                                                                                    
MS. NOROSZ  replied in  the affirmative  and said  "everything is                                                               
spelled  out."   In  further response,  she  relayed that  Icicle                                                               
Seafoods  requires  that  all   employees  speak  and  understand                                                               
English, although not necessarily read  and write English.  There                                                               
are  also people  available to  ensure that  employees understand                                                               
what they are being told.                                                                                                       
MS. NOROSZ  said it's expensive  to go through a  hiring process.                                                               
It is  also expensive to have  an unhappy worker wanting  to quit                                                               
halfway through  a season, because  a replacement worker  must be                                                               
hired.   Thus it is important  to have a thorough  hiring process                                                               
at the beginning  of the season to find the  right people for the                                                               
right jobs, instead of replacing workers midseason.                                                                             
Number 2026                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked  if a prospective employee  signs a written                                                               
MS.  NOROSZ responded  in the  affirmative.   She explained  that                                                               
[Icicle Seafoods] wants  employees to sign a  written contract so                                                               
that it  can count  on those  employees for  the duration  of the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD inquired  if  an employee  working at  a                                                               
remote  location is  entitled  to return  airfare  if he/she  has                                                               
decided  to quit  because there  is a  low run  of fish  and that                                                               
person isn't getting much work.                                                                                                 
MS. NOROSZ explained  that for an employee  to get transportation                                                               
back, he/she must  complete the contract.  If  [an employee] ends                                                               
the  contract  early,  It is  the  employee's  responsibility  to                                                               
provide transportation  back if  that person  decides to  end the                                                               
contract  early,  or if  that  person  is  caught with  drugs  or                                                               
alcohol  on the  premises -  which is  strictly forbidden  by the                                                               
contract - and  is involuntarily terminated.   Ms. Norosz pointed                                                               
out that  not all of  the processing  occurs with salmon.   There                                                               
are other species,  some of which entail  cooperative fishing, so                                                               
that the fish come in at a steady pace.                                                                                         
Number 2117                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said it was  the intent of [the House] to                                                               
raise the minimum  wage, but that [HB 504] seems  "to give on the                                                               
right hand  and take away on  the left hand."   He questioned the                                                               
benefit to  a worker who  would work  for possibly three  or four                                                               
days a week  and still be required to pay  room-and-board fees in                                                               
a remote area where there aren't other employment options.                                                                      
MS. NOROSZ  responded that  every season  is a  little different.                                                               
If a run of fish is  smaller than expected in a certain location,                                                               
[Icicle Seafoods]  will downsize  the operation and  move workers                                                               
to  another location  if they  want to  keep working.   If  there                                                               
isn't enough work,  employees can be let out  of their contracts.                                                               
She offered  that after a  reasonable time, [if]  ADF&G downsizes                                                               
the  forecast [of  returning fish],  Icicle  Seafoods would  then                                                               
provide employees with other opportunities.                                                                                     
Number 2246                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how  many applicants are attracted to                                                               
the occupation because of overtime pay.                                                                                         
MS. NOROSZ  responded that she  thinks it is  a "big lure."   Few                                                               
other industries require  as much overtime.   Many employees like                                                               
working  in  remote  locations   because  there  aren't  as  many                                                               
distractions as  some towns  have, she  said, and  therefore they                                                               
won't spend as  much money at stores  or drinking establishments.                                                               
Ms. Norosz pointed out that  Icicle Seafoods actually discourages                                                               
applicants  from  going  to  remote   locations  because  if  the                                                               
employee doesn't  like it  and wants  to leave,  it's not  a good                                                               
situation for the employer or the employee.                                                                                     
Number 2318                                                                                                                     
MS.  NOROSZ,  in  response  to  Chair  Murkowski,  reported  that                                                               
employees in  Petersburg are  started at $7  an hour,  and remote                                                               
employees  are paid  $6 an  hour.   As  to whether  there is  any                                                               
difficulty in  finding the number  of employees needed,  she said                                                               
it depends on the season and  the current state of the job market                                                               
in  Alaska and  the Lower  48.   She offered  that three  to four                                                               
years ago there was some  difficulty attracting enough employees,                                                               
and the DLWD  was "very helpful" in helping with  that.  The past                                                               
few years, it has been much easier to find employees.                                                                           
TAPE 02-45, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2383                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what  the average retention rate is                                                               
for returning employees.                                                                                                        
MS.  NOROSZ  offered  to  find   out.    She  said  regular  wage                                                               
increases, as well as benefits,  are given to employees according                                                               
to the number of hours they have worked.                                                                                        
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked Mr. Mastriano whether  his office conducts                                                               
visits to remote locations.                                                                                                     
Number 2325                                                                                                                     
RICHARD  MASTRIANO, Director,  Division  of  Labor Standards  and                                                               
Safety,   Department   of   Labor  and   Workforce   Development,                                                               
testifying via  teleconference, replied  in the affirmative.   He                                                               
reported that  OSHA, under labor  standards, does do  "the shore-                                                               
based processing - we go  out and do the shore-based processing."                                                               
The U.S.  Department of Labor  covers the  [floating processors].                                                               
In further response,  he said [a processor usually  gets a visit]                                                               
about once a year unless a problem requires a follow-up visit.                                                                  
Number 2290                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO  asked if  there have been  complaints with                                                               
regard to employment practices in remote facilities.                                                                            
MR. MASTRIANO answered  that he receives a  number of complaints,                                                               
but not  very many are  related to  housing.  The  complaints are                                                               
with regard to return transportation,  wages, and deductions from                                                               
wages.   He  reported  that  last year  DLWD  received 71  claims                                                               
statewide for various  deduction problems, 20 of  which were from                                                               
processors.  In further response,  he explained that usually when                                                               
there is  a wage claim,  an employee  has signed a  contract with                                                               
the employer and isn't getting  enough work in a remote location.                                                               
An employee  who quits must  pay for transportation,  as outlined                                                               
in the contract.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  told members that  a statute deals  with the                                                               
right to return  transportation, and that it is  also spelled out                                                               
in the contract.   He said some of the other  issues, such as not                                                               
being paid correctly  for the amount of hours  worked, aren't any                                                               
different from issues for workers elsewhere.                                                                                    
MR. MASTRIANO agreed.                                                                                                           
Number 2162                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked if DLWD  is involved with  complaints from                                                               
employees who don't feel they are  being charged a fair price for                                                               
room and board.                                                                                                                 
MR. MASTRIANO responded  that most processors charge  about $10 a                                                               
day  for   room  and  board,   which  the  department   feels  is                                                               
reasonable.    If a  complaint  is  received, the  employer  must                                                               
furnish a  complete budget  to show the  department the  costs to                                                               
operate  and maintain  that facility.   A  program in  the C.F.R.                                                               
[Code of  Federal Regulations] tells what  expenses are allowable                                                               
without profit,  which is what  [DLWD] will  look at.   He hasn't                                                               
had that happen  since becoming director, he  said, and therefore                                                               
hasn't had to perform this procedure.                                                                                           
Number 2073                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG referred  to  AS 23.10.380(a)(1),  which                                                               
read in part, "(1) on or  after the termination of employment for                                                               
a cause considered good and  sufficient by the department, beyond                                                               
the control of the person, or  on or after the termination of the                                                               
contract of employment  or a renewal of the contract".   He asked                                                               
whether,  when an  employee  is fired,  the  employer must  still                                                               
provide return transportation.                                                                                                  
MR. MASTRIANO replied  that there is a  companion regulation that                                                               
goes  along  with that;  he  indicated  that  if an  employee  is                                                               
terminated  for an  unexcused absence,  drinking on  the job,  or                                                               
fighting,   the  employer   doesn't  have   to  pay   for  return                                                               
transportation.   However, if an  employee is fired  for anything                                                               
else, [the employer] must pay the return transportation.                                                                        
Number 2010                                                                                                                     
DON  ETHERIDGE,  Lobbyist  for Alaska  State  AFL-CIO,  testified                                                               
before the committee in opposition to  HB 504.  He said [AFL-CIO]                                                               
sees  HB 504  as  the "tip  of this  iceberg,"  and although  the                                                               
fisheries industry is  in a slump, it shouldn't  be exempted from                                                               
minimum wage.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  asked if  "organized labor" is  aware of                                                               
the  economic   situation  surrounding  the   seafood  processing                                                               
industry,  particularly with  the  regard to  the importation  of                                                               
foreign fish.                                                                                                                   
MR. ETHERIDGE replied in the  affirmative.  He said the [AFL-CIO]                                                               
is  concerned for  the [fishing]  industry and  the workers.   He                                                               
offered that he knows a person  who is a recruiter for a "fishing                                                               
group" that is about to go broke,  and yet this person owns a new                                                               
house on  Bainbridge Island in  Washington and a  brand-new house                                                               
in San  Francisco.   He stated,  "He's a  recruiter for  them, so                                                               
they can't be all that broke."                                                                                                  
Number 1879                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG offered  that the  "integrated [fishing]                                                               
business" in  Alaska encompasses the small  gillnetter through to                                                               
the large processor.  He  speculated that the individual that Mr.                                                               
Etheridge  had  referred  to  is  on the  executive  end  of  the                                                               
industry, and will be out of  a job quickly if the industry fails                                                               
entirely.   He said he  can foresee  the industry failing  in the                                                               
next couple  of years,  particularly "after  the ALF-CIO  ... was                                                               
able  to  pass  a  petition  to raise  the  minimum  wage  by  26                                                               
percent."    He  asked  if   some  of  the  businesses  that  are                                                               
struggling financially deserve a break.                                                                                         
MR. ETHERIDGE responded that "every  business in the world" could                                                               
use a  break for one  reason or another.   He said he  has worked                                                               
extensively   in   the   commercial  fisheries   industry,   from                                                               
commercial  fishing  to  working  in  the  canneries,  and  these                                                               
workers deserve the same wages as those in other industries.                                                                    
Number 1829                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI   closed  public   testimony.    She   spoke  to                                                               
Representative  Kott regarding  the  language in  Section 1  that                                                               
provides that  there is a  written agreement with an  employee in                                                               
order to  take the deduction.   She referred  to page 1,  line 7,                                                               
which  allows  for  a  deduction "based  on  a  negotiated  union                                                               
agreement  or  a  written  agreement with  the  employee".    She                                                               
suggested that "at the time of hire"  might need to be added as a                                                               
clarification.  This  would require the employer  to disclose the                                                               
room-and-board  deductions with  the prospective  employee before                                                               
work begins so that the employee knows what to expect.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed that should be added.                                                                                
Number 1744                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  referred to  8 AAC  15.160, subsection  (e), and                                                               
said this  states that  the employer  and employee  have executed                                                               
the written agreement at the time of hire.                                                                                      
Number 1712                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  moved to adopt Amendment  1, on page 1,  line 7,                                                               
to  read, "based  on a  negotiated union  agreement or  a written                                                               
agreement entered at the time of  hire with the employee".  There                                                               
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG   stated   a  concern   regarding   any                                                               
subsequent amendments or changes "to  that document."  He offered                                                               
that the  "courts would  look at  it only  in the  subject matter                                                               
that we're stressing here."                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI agreed  with Representative  Rokeberg's concern,                                                               
mentioning an employee  who is hired to work in  one location and                                                               
then moved to another location because of a lack of fish.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  offered that  this employee  could enter                                                               
into a new written contract.                                                                                                    
Number 1660                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  pointed  out  there has  been  discussion  that                                                               
[allowing the fishing industry] to  deduct from wages will prompt                                                               
other industries  to [request the  same provision].  She  said to                                                               
Representative Kott,  "As I understand,  what you are  doing with                                                               
[HB 504] is codifying the language from regulations."                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that is  "pretty much true," and offered                                                               
that there  is potentially an opportunity  for another occupation                                                               
to perhaps tweak  [the regulations].  He said,  however, that the                                                               
statutes clearly  indicate the commissioner can  pass regulations                                                               
that  will allow  for the  reduction  from the  minimum wage  for                                                               
specific  occupations.   He said,  "In the  regulatory scheme  of                                                               
things,  what has  happened  is we've  added  a little  provision                                                               
there  that basically  now separates  occupation  from remote  to                                                               
nonremote."    Currently, deductions  can  be  made in  nonremote                                                               
sites - for example, in Petersburg - but not in remote areas.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  suggested the occupation, not  the location,                                                               
is the  important factor.   He remarked, "Our statute  allows for                                                               
it, the  feds allow for it,  and the regulations allow  for it in                                                               
part; they  didn't quite go all  the way.  So  they've carved out                                                               
this  niche between  nonremote and  remote, and  we're trying  to                                                               
fill the void."  In  response to Representative Rokeberg, said he                                                               
would  guess that  because there  is  alternative public  housing                                                               
available, Unalaska is a nonremote site.                                                                                        
Number 1500                                                                                                                     
ED  FLANAGAN, Commissioner,  Department  of  Labor and  Workforce                                                               
Development, (DLWD)  responded in  the affirmative to  a question                                                               
from Representative  Meyer regarding whether the  department will                                                               
need to hire another person if the bill passes.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE   MEYER    questioned   that,    suggesting   [the                                                               
department] is  already going  out to job  sites to  oversee OSHA                                                               
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN  explained that  [the department]  tries to                                                               
do  as   much  "cross-training"  as   possible,  but   there  are                                                               
distinctions between  programs, especially  in the case  of OSHA,                                                               
since it's  50 percent federally funded.   He said a  lot of this                                                               
would  be  kind   of  an  audit  function,  and   it  wasn't  the                                                               
department's intention  to introduce  a prohibitive  fiscal note.                                                               
He said  if there was a  provision [in state statute]  whereby if                                                               
[an  employer]  just charges  $10  [for  room and  board],  there                                                               
wouldn't  be an  audit.   He explained  that the  reason for  the                                                               
additional position  on the  fiscal note is  because there  are a                                                               
lot of  remote facilities in  Alaska, and  an audit [in  a remote                                                               
area] could be fairly labor-intensive.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER asked  if  the [$70,600]  indicated on  the                                                               
fiscal note represents the position and travel costs.                                                                           
COMMISSIONER  FLANAGAN reported  that  it is  the "full  position                                                               
cost."  He deferred to Mr. Mastriano.                                                                                           
Number 1401                                                                                                                     
MR. MASTRIANO said, "Yes, it does."   With regard to the [$9,300]                                                               
contractual cost  on the fiscal  note, he said that  figure would                                                               
cover a desk, computer, and other office equipment.                                                                             
COMMISSIONER  FLANAGAN added  that  the figure  should be  listed                                                               
under equipment on the fiscal note.                                                                                             
Number 1375                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER   restated  his  concern  over   hiring  an                                                               
additional  person  if there  already  are  people going  to  the                                                               
remote sites.                                                                                                                   
COMMISSIONER  FLANAGAN responded,  "Wage  & Hour  doesn't get  in                                                               
nearly as often."   He said OSHA does  have scheduled inspections                                                               
and tries to  get into the processing facilities at  least once a                                                               
year, because  it is a  high-hazard industry.  He  explained that                                                               
the   return-transportation  issue   does  generate   a  lot   of                                                               
complaints, even  if employers  are complying with  the law.   He                                                               
stated, "It's one  of our last fully  general-funded sections, so                                                               
there's no  ... ability to  pick up any additional  tasks without                                                               
reflecting it in a fiscal note."                                                                                                
Number 1298                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  asked whether  one  visit  a year  to  the                                                               
remote sites is anticipated.                                                                                                    
MR. MASTRIANO explained  that since it would be  a new situation,                                                               
[the  department] would  probably go  out and  visit the  sites -                                                               
particularly the outlying areas -  because there is no history of                                                               
what to  charge out there and  what the operating costs  are.  In                                                               
each of those areas, unless the  employer chose to charge $10 for                                                               
room and board  a day, [the department] would have  to go out and                                                               
get into  [a business's] records  or have them forwarded  [to the                                                               
department], which  businesses generally  don't like  to do.   He                                                               
explained  that   [the  department]  would  have   to  develop  a                                                               
spreadsheet for  calculating all  the operating costs  and making                                                               
sure [the  cost for  room and  board] was  reasonable.   He said,                                                               
"More than  likely, it would end  up being more than  $10, but we                                                               
would still have to go through the exercise."                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  asked if the investigation  would only have                                                               
to be done once.                                                                                                                
MR. MASTRIANO replied  that the investigation would  be done once                                                               
only if  the cost didn't  change.   He offered that  many factors                                                               
could lead to an  increased cost, such as a rise  in the price of                                                               
electricity or natural gas.                                                                                                     
Number 1189                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked if  [the department] would  have to  do an                                                               
analysis of each  [fishing business] to determine  the fair value                                                               
of room and  board before the employee and  employer entered into                                                               
a written contract.                                                                                                             
MR.  MASTRIANO  responded,  "Yes,  but  we're  complaint-driven".                                                               
Therefore, an audit would have to be done on each new complaint.                                                                
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI surmised  that until  a complaint  was received,                                                               
there would be no audits.                                                                                                       
MR. MASTRIANO replied,  "Not unless the statute  were passed, and                                                               
then we would probably  have to do that on some  of them, but ...                                                               
not until  we got everybody  in line with  the new statute."   He                                                               
offered that [an initial audit] would  most likely be done in the                                                               
most remote  areas to make  sure those costs are  reasonable, and                                                               
"then wait for the complaints to come in."                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  asked if  the  OSHA  inspectors can  do                                                               
other jobs because they are federally funded.                                                                                   
MR.  MASTRIANO replied  in  the  negative and  said,  "We have  a                                                               
strict   guideline   from    Occupational   Safety   and   Health                                                               
[Administration]  as to  what our  folks can  do."   He explained                                                               
that  the  enforcement  and   consultation  employees  [with  the                                                               
department] are  separated and are  not allowed to  discuss where                                                               
they are supposed to go [to investigate].                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG,  referring to 8 AAC  15.160(d), asked if                                                               
[the department]  already has the  ability in nonremote  sites to                                                               
deduct [room and board].                                                                                                        
MR.  MASTRIANO answered  that if  alternative  public housing  is                                                               
available  and the  employee  agrees to  stay  at the  employer's                                                               
place of business, then the deductions can be made.                                                                             
Number 1038                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  suggested it  would likely  include most                                                               
of the larger communities.                                                                                                      
MR. MASTRIANO replied  that it would include  communities such as                                                               
Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, or Ninilchik.   He said the wage-and-hour                                                               
investigators try to make a visit  in late May or early June, and                                                               
then again  at the end of  the season in September  if there have                                                               
been a lot of complaints.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG   asked  Mr.  Mastriano  where   the  71                                                               
complaints he'd mentioned had come from.                                                                                        
MR.  MASTRIANO  explained  that  the  figure  was  the  total  of                                                               
statewide   complaints   [the   department]  had   received   for                                                               
deductions.     He  said   that  is  what   the  wage   and  hour                                                               
administration  calls "150,  ... wrongful  deductions, and  those                                                               
require investigations."  These  "wrongful deductions" require an                                                               
investigation and  can vary; examples  are a deduction for  a bad                                                               
check, or after someone walked out on a meal.                                                                                   
Number 0933                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   CRAWFORD   began    discussion   of   conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2.  He  said he is opposed to "the  spirit of [HB 504]"                                                               
but  understands that  the fish  processors have  a problem.   He                                                               
noted  his concern  over the  wording  on line  8, "a  reasonable                                                               
cost", because this cost can vary  throughout the state.  He said                                                               
this wording might leave employers open  to charge up to $25 [for                                                               
room and board],  giving too much leeway to  charge whatever they                                                               
deem is reasonable.                                                                                                             
Number 0779                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  moved to  adopt conceptual  Amendment 2,                                                               
to clarify "reasonable  cost" on page 1, line 8,  to specify that                                                               
amount to  begin at $8  [per day]  and to be  adjusted [annually]                                                               
based on  the consumer price  index (CPI}.  This  amendment would                                                               
also state that employees would not  have to pay [room and board]                                                               
for days they don't work.                                                                                                       
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  offered   her  understanding  that  [employers]                                                               
generally charge $10 a day for board, but that meals are extra.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said some charge [extra  for meals], but                                                               
Mr. Mastriano had  indicated some employers charge $10  a day for                                                               
room and board.                                                                                                                 
Number 0723                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   HALCRO  offered   his  understanding   from  the                                                               
testimony that  the "accepted level is  $10 a day."   He stated a                                                               
concern with  a worker's accepting  a remote job with  the notion                                                               
of working "significant  hours," and then if the  fish don't show                                                               
or there  is a poor  return, the worker  will sit and  wait until                                                               
the fish come  in.  Meanwhile, the person is  only working two or                                                               
three hours  a day and  is being charged $10  a day for  room and                                                               
board, and could  possibly, at the end of the  two- or three-week                                                               
slow period,  end up owing money  [to the employer].   He said he                                                               
would like  to see  some kind  of protection  for employees  in a                                                               
situation in which  they would owe money after  they left because                                                               
of a lack of work.                                                                                                              
Number 0617                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  remarked that  Representative  Halcro's                                                               
point is  part of his concern  also, and said he  doesn't want to                                                               
see [employees leave] with a very  small paycheck.  He said there                                                               
are  people who  wait  in  an unemployment  office  and wait  for                                                               
employers to  call.  If there  is more than one  employer looking                                                               
for workers, the prospective employee  must decide where to work,                                                               
based on  the pay and whether  room and board is  included.  Once                                                               
the  employee accepts  a job,  that person  is "at  the mercy  of                                                               
Mother Nature."   He said he  knows people who haven't  made much                                                               
money because  they made  the wrong  decision but  couldn't leave                                                               
because they couldn't afford return transportation.                                                                             
Number 0516                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG referred  to  8  AAC 15.160[(e)],  which                                                               
     Unless the  employer and the  employee have  executed a                                                                    
     written agreement as described  in (d) of this section,                                                                    
     at the  time of hire,  the employer is  prohibited from                                                                    
     seeking to  retroactively deduct the cost  of board and                                                                    
     lodging   as  an   offset   against   wages  due   upon                                                                    
     termination or wage  deficiencies subject to collection                                                                    
     by the department.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  interpreted  this   to  mean  that  the                                                               
department won't collect money from  "this person, nor should the                                                               
employer."   He said, "You  can't charge  him for more  than he's                                                               
made."  He asked Representative Crawford  if this is the point of                                                               
[his amendment].                                                                                                                
Number 0450                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  reiterated  that  he  doesn't  want  an                                                               
employee charged for  more than was earned, and  wants the person                                                               
to have at least something to show for his/her time out there.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG offered  that  this  issue is  partially                                                               
resolved in the regulations.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD added  that if  there  is no  work on  a                                                               
particular day,  an employee  shouldn't be  charged for  room and                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG said  he  understands  the concern,  but                                                               
suggested  it  could  be an  accounting  nightmare  deciding  who                                                               
worked on what  day, and what kind of work  a particular employee                                                               
did.  He  offered, "We could put a  prohibition [whereby] there's                                                               
no way  they can offset or  deduct more than the  wages earned by                                                               
the person.   That  way, he's  protected."  He  asked if  this is                                                               
what Representative Crawford is referring to.                                                                                   
Number 0355                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said, "No.   If I  don't get to  work on                                                               
Tuesday, then I shouldn't have to  pay for room and board on that                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "But you ate."                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that it  is part of the risk an                                                               
employer takes in sending employees out to a remote location.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  reiterated that the accounting  could be                                                               
a real problem.                                                                                                                 
Number 0323                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD noted  that this  works in  his line  of                                                               
work, and said it should work for the fisheries industry also.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG   said  the   fishing  industry   is  in                                                               
financial trouble and that he  doesn't want to add any accounting                                                               
costs.   He offered that an  employee who sat for  two weeks, and                                                               
didn't work, shouldn't be charged.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded, "No, no.   If I work four days                                                               
and get  paid for four  days, I shouldn't  have to pay  for seven                                                               
days' worth of room and board."                                                                                                 
Number 0234                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT objected to conceptual  Amendment 2.  He said                                                               
there are risks employees must  take when accepting employment in                                                               
a remote site.   He noted from previous  testimony that employers                                                               
don't want to let the employees sit  idle, and that if there is a                                                               
poor fish return, then the  employer may relocate the employee to                                                               
a nonremote  area.  He  suggested the discussion was  getting too                                                               
complex with regard  to determining wages and the  value [of room                                                               
and board].  He emphasized that  there isn't a place in the state                                                               
where someone  can eat  as much  as desired  for $10  a day.   He                                                               
said, "I'd  be more than willing  to compromise and go  $15 a day                                                               
and no audits."                                                                                                                 
Number 0090                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected as well.                                                                                       
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered that  Representative Crawford had started                                                               
out  with  two issues.    The  first  was the  "reasonable  cost"                                                               
concern.   She  said she  didn't share  Representative Crawford's                                                               
discomfort  with  that  issue,  and noted  that  Mr.  Mastriano's                                                               
testimony  indicated  that  [the wage  and  hour  administration]                                                               
spends  a fair  amount of  time  determining the  fair value  and                                                               
reasonable  cost.   However,  she  concurred with  Representative                                                               
Crawford's  concern about  the worker  who is  stuck in  a remote                                                               
TAPE 02-46, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0009                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI offered  that  if one  location  doesn't have  a                                                               
large return of  fish, it is beneficial to both  the employer and                                                               
the employee  to relocate to  where there  is more work.   Noting                                                               
the concern  about what  can happen  with employees  who possibly                                                               
owe more money at  the end of the day due to a  lack of work, she                                                               
said she  wasn't "so  unopposed" to  conceptual Amendment  2, and                                                               
suggested it is an area that needs to be worked out.                                                                            
Number 0162                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  explained  the   changes  he  would  be                                                               
willing to  accept to conceptual  Amendment 2:  replace  the word                                                               
"reasonable" with "$10 a day", and  add "not have to pay for room                                                               
and  board  for  days  not  worked".    He  clarified  that  he'd                                                               
originally  indicated  $8  to  replace  "reasonable",  but  would                                                               
consider changing that to $10.                                                                                                  
Number 0234                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI   suggested  having  two   separate  amendments.                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2 would provide  language to the effect that                                                               
an employee  wouldn't be required to  pay for room and  board for                                                               
days when wages were not earned.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT  objected to  conceptual  Amendment  2.   He                                                               
offered his belief  that there had been no  anecdotal evidence or                                                               
factual  support in  the  testimony  for the  idea  based on  the                                                               
nonremote sites.   He  said this is  the existing  situation, and                                                               
employees aren't charged  extra for days when they  work 16 hours                                                               
and might eat four meals.                                                                                                       
Number 0322                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI explained  that the way the  regulations are now,                                                               
deductions from  the wages  can be made  in a  nonremote setting;                                                               
there is  no allowance  that depends on  whether the  employee is                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  offered that he hasn't  heard any complaints                                                               
about the current regulation.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD responded  that he  has heard  plenty of                                                               
complaints  from his  relatives and  friends who  have worked  in                                                               
nonremote sites.   He emphasized  that part of the  attraction of                                                               
working in a remote site is  that an employee doesn't have to pay                                                               
room and board if the fish don't return and there isn't work.                                                                   
Number 0401                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that  the contract signed prior                                                               
to employment  could stipulate whether  [room and board  would be                                                               
covered by the  employer when there isn't work].   He argued that                                                               
[the legislature] shouldn't be writing  contracts by statute.  He                                                               
agreed  with  Representative Kott  that  there  haven't been  any                                                               
problems brought up in testimony about the current practice.                                                                    
Number 0473                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   CRAWFORD    responded,   "Under    the   present                                                               
regulations, they don't  have the ability to write  a contract to                                                               
take room and board out of  remote sites; that's not there.  This                                                               
bill is trying to  give that right to the employer."   He said he                                                               
is trying  to "keep that  from happening, or at  least mitigating                                                               
the damage that it might do."                                                                                                   
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI pointed  out that  if there  isn't enough  work,                                                               
employees  can  choose  to  find   other  employment  in  larger,                                                               
nonremote sites, whereas employees in remote sites are stuck.                                                                   
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  requested  a   roll  call  vote  on  conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2,  which she said  would insert language such  that if                                                               
the employee hadn't  earned a wage on a given  day, that employee                                                               
wouldn't be charged for room and board.                                                                                         
Number 0570                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked  how the situation would  be handled if                                                               
an employee  had requested a  day off  and hadn't earned  a wage,                                                               
and whether  an employee would  be paid  who requested a  day off                                                               
for illness.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES  asked  for  clarification,  conveying  his                                                               
understanding  that most  employees don't  get a  [scheduled] day                                                               
off in this industry.                                                                                                           
Number 0708                                                                                                                     
MS. NOROSZ explained that people sign  on to work for a period of                                                               
time when  work is available;  contracts vary with  each company,                                                               
and  she  didn't  know  whether  there  was  a  uniform  standard                                                               
throughout the industry.  As  to whether employees have scheduled                                                               
days off,  she responded in  the negative and offered  an example                                                               
of an opening during the salmon  season:  the fishermen will fish                                                               
for two  days and then  bring the  fish to the  processing plant.                                                               
It could  take three to four  days to process the  fish once they                                                               
are received,  and maybe  no fish will  be delivered  for another                                                               
day;  so employees  may have  the  day off  or may  end up  doing                                                               
nonprocessing work  like maintenance.   During  the day  off, she                                                               
pointed out, employees are still being fed and housed.                                                                          
Number 0803                                                                                                                     
MS. NOROSZ, in response to  Representative Rokeberg, said [Icicle                                                               
Seafoods] tries to  give everybody some work,  rather than giving                                                               
one crew  a ten-hour day  and another two hours.   At the  end of                                                               
the  season  when the  fish  run  is  dwindling, she  noted,  the                                                               
company will try to reduce the workforce.  She elaborated:                                                                      
     People could either go home  or, if they wanted to find                                                                    
     other work with the company,  we would try to move them                                                                    
     somewhere else where it has a  longer season.  ...  The                                                                    
     State  of Alaska  has been  very helpful  in trying  to                                                                    
     direct seafood  workers when their season's  ended into                                                                    
     another  fishery, and  even for  another processor  who                                                                    
     might  be doing  a species  ... that's  going into  the                                                                    
     fall and winter.                                                                                                           
Number 0900                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  offered   an  amendment  to  conceptual                                                               
Amendment  2, to  have there  be no  charge for  involuntary days                                                               
off.  For  a voluntary day off, the employee  would still have to                                                               
pay for room and board.                                                                                                         
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI clarified  that  conceptual  Amendment 2,  then,                                                               
would be  that an employee  would not  be charged room  and board                                                               
for  the  days  when  he  or  she  didn't  earn  a  wage  for  an                                                               
involuntary day off.                                                                                                            
Number 0966                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT  referred  to  testimony  and  indicated  he                                                               
objected  because [the  legislature]  would  be asserting  itself                                                               
into managing a work schedule.  He explained:                                                                                   
     All we  have to do  is put ...  one person on  the line                                                                    
     for  two hours  ... [and]  pay them  $5.30 an  hour, so                                                                    
     that'll give  them $10.80.   ...  We subtract  $10 from                                                                    
     his  wages for  room and  board, [and]  he's making  80                                                                    
     cents.  That just  satisfied your amendment and doesn't                                                                    
     do anything  but clog  up the whole  cog ...  with more                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  countered,  "It doesn't  clog  anything                                                               
because under [HB  504] they're going to charge them  for the day                                                               
anyhow,  whether he  works or  not.   So if  they get  two hours'                                                               
worth of work, then that much the better."                                                                                      
Number 1022                                                                                                                     
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Crawford, Hayes,                                                               
and  Murkowski voted  for conceptual  Amendment  2 [as  amended].                                                               
Representatives Halcro,  Meyer, Kott, and Rokeberg  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT  offered that  the  question  brought up  by                                                               
Representative Crawford about how  much a processor should charge                                                               
an  employee is  a  fair one.    He said  he  would entertain  an                                                               
amendment that  says the processors  cannot charge any  more than                                                               
the daily average of what's being charged in nonremote sites.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated the  amount an employee will be                                                               
charged for room  and board [should be in]  the written agreement                                                               
before the  employment begins, so  that the  prospective employee                                                               
knows the score going in.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT  related  his  belief,  after  talking  with                                                               
members of  the fishing industry  on several occasions,  that the                                                               
amount  to be  charged  for room  and board  is  included in  the                                                               
contract.  He again suggested  creating [an average] that doesn't                                                               
exceed what  is being charged in  nonremote sites.  He  asked Ms.                                                               
Norosz whether that concept is reasonable.                                                                                      
Number 1200                                                                                                                     
MS. NOROSZ  replied that  she doesn't  know what  other companies                                                               
are  doing, but  said what  [Icicle  Seafoods] is  doing is  very                                                               
reasonable, considering it loses money  every year on meals.  She                                                               
noted that food in remote areas is more expensive.                                                                              
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  said   she  appreciated  Representative  Kott's                                                               
concern,  but surmised  that  [the  Wage &  Hour  section of  the                                                               
Division of  Labor Standards &  Safety, DLWD] makes  certain that                                                               
businesses  aren't way  out of  line with  what they're  charging                                                               
employees  for   room  and  board.     She  stated   support  for                                                               
Representative  Rokeberg's suggestion  to make  certain that  the                                                               
written agreement clearly  sets forth what those  charges will be                                                               
for  room and  board before  the employee  begins working.   This                                                               
would let  prospective employees know  exactly what they  will be                                                               
charged prior to employment.                                                                                                    
Number 1337                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT  concurred,  but  said  there  may  be  some                                                               
potential for  abuse "the other way."   He stated a  concern with                                                               
some  migrant  workers or  immigrants  who  can't read  or  write                                                               
English.  He noted that employers  will need to keep their prices                                                               
reasonable to stay competitive in the industry.                                                                                 
Number 1407                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES  offered to add a  conceptual amendment that                                                               
would require the House Labor  and Commerce Standing Committee to                                                               
review the  status of this  legislation and the  fishing industry                                                               
every two  years.  He  suggested that  in years when  the fishing                                                               
industry is  flourishing, the exemption  might not  be warranted.                                                               
In  response to  Chair  Murkowski, he  explained  that he  wasn't                                                               
proposing a  sunset review, but  a report to the  committee every                                                               
two years.                                                                                                                      
Number 1482                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to  prior legislation that granted                                                               
an exception  to wages  for airline  employees and  volunteer ski                                                               
patrollers,  and explained  that  there were  warnings about  the                                                               
exemptions'  being "a  slippery slope"  because other  industries                                                               
would ask  for exemptions  also.   He said  he doesn't  think [HB
504]  is a  slippery slope  because exceptions  will come  up and                                                               
need to  be debated on their  merits every year, whether  for the                                                               
fishing  industry or  the airline  industry.   He said  he wasn't                                                               
supportive   of  Representative   Hayes's  suggested   conceptual                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  agreed and  noted that nothing  prevents the                                                               
next legislature  from reviewing [the  new law, if  enacted] next                                                               
year instead  of waiting for  two years.   He said  requiring the                                                               
legislature  to revisit  it based  on a  report will  be throwing                                                               
more  paperwork on  the shoulders  of the  [DLWD].   He suggested                                                               
that a sunset provision wouldn't be prudent at this point.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also stated  opposition to the conceptual                                                               
amendment proposed by Representative Hayes.                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  offered  that  the  House  Labor  and  Commerce                                                               
Standing Committee might  want to submit a letter  of intent that                                                               
says the  committee wants  to revisit  the issue  in a  couple of                                                               
years to see how the seafood industry is doing in general.                                                                      
Number 1646                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES thanked  Representative  Murkowski for  her                                                               
suggestion and  announced that a  letter of intent  would satisfy                                                               
his concern instead of an amendment.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  said the  regulations apply  to half  of the                                                               
processors, but  not the others.   He argued that [HB  504] is "a                                                               
fairness bill."                                                                                                                 
Number 1712                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  moved  to  adopt  conceptual  Amendment  3,  to                                                               
clarify  the  language  with  regard  to  the  written  agreement                                                               
between  the  employer  and  the employee,  to  provide  that  it                                                               
"should  clearly state  the terms  and  conditions of  employment                                                               
including the  cost for board  or lodging, which may  be deducted                                                               
from the  applicable minimum  wage."   There being  no objection,                                                               
conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                             
Number 1745                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  moved to  adopt conceptual  Amendment 4,                                                               
to add a new Section 2 to provide an immediate effective date.                                                                  
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  explained that by  the time [HB  504] is                                                               
passed into law, the fishing season will have already started.                                                                  
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to a  previous comment by Representative                                                               
Kott  indicating  this  bill  isn't   tied  to  the  minimum-wage                                                               
legislation [HB  56], which has  an effective date of  January 1,                                                               
2003.  She said the current  minimum wage of $5.65 would still be                                                               
in  effect if  [HB  504]  had an  immediate  effective date,  and                                                               
wouldn't change until January 1, 2003.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT restated  that [HB 504] is  an "equity issue"                                                               
[between   remote  and   nonremote  employees   in  the   fishing                                                               
Number 1827                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES referred to  prior testimony which indicated                                                               
that  remote  employees  are  paid   $6  an  hour  and  nonremote                                                               
employees  are  paid  $7  an  hour.    He  asked  how  conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4 affects these employees.                                                                                            
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  clarified that the  employee and  employer would                                                               
be able to  enter into the contractual agreement  that allows for                                                               
the deduction  of room  and board this  summer from  whatever the                                                               
minimum wage was at the time the contract was signed.                                                                           
Number 1897                                                                                                                     
A  roll call  vote  was taken.    Representatives Halcro,  Meyer,                                                               
Kott,   and   Rokeberg   voted  for   conceptual   Amendment   4.                                                               
Representatives Hayes, Crawford, and  Murkowski voted against it.                                                               
Therefore, conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  suggested the fiscal note  could be reduced                                                               
from [$70,600].   He  said there  shouldn't be a  need for  a new                                                               
full-time  employee because  the department  is already  doing at                                                               
least half of this work currently.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  agreed, saying he sees  no justification for                                                               
the fiscal note in the "out" years.                                                                                             
Number 2009                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  concurred and suggested  that the  House Finance                                                               
Committee "pick it apart."                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  commented that  he suspects  Congress is                                                               
going to  pass a  minimum wage bill  "sooner rather  than later."                                                               
He said this  is one reason he'd offered  conceptual Amendment 4,                                                               
which  creates an  immediate effective  date.   He  asked if  the                                                               
minimum-wage increase  would be  immediate in Alaska  if Congress                                                               
passed the minimum-wage bill.                                                                                                   
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN  replied, "It  would, but  you're basically                                                               
negating  the  minimum  wage  for these  people,  so  it  doesn't                                                               
Number 2070                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG moved  to report  CSHB 504  [version 22-                                                               
LS1595\L,  Craver, 3/25/02,  as  amended] out  of committee  with                                                               
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  note.                                                               
There  being no  objection, CSHB  504(L&C) was  moved out  of the                                                               
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.                                                                                    
HB 472-PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS                                                                                         
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the next  order of business, HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO. 472, "An Act relating to  persons who buy and sell secondhand                                                               
articles  and to  certain persons  who lend  money on  secondhand                                                               
Number 2132                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HALCRO  moved  to adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS), version 22-LS1519\J,  Bannister, 3/19/02, as the                                                               
working  document.   There  being  no  objection, Version  J  was                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
Number 2150                                                                                                                     
LAURA  ACHEE, Staff  to Representative  Joe  Green, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  on behalf  of Representative  Green, sponsor  of HB
472, explained that  Version J addresses two  concerns brought up                                                               
at the  last hearing.   One relates to tightening  the definition                                                               
of  a secondhand  dealer  so  that garage  sales  and swap  meets                                                               
aren't included.   The other was  brought up by a  pawnshop owner                                                               
who felt  he shouldn't have  to list items  that he'd paid  $1 to                                                               
purchase.   She  said she'd  worked with  pawnbrokers and  police                                                               
officers  to come  up with  clearly defined  guidelines for  what                                                               
needs to  be recorded:   any item that  has a serial  number; any                                                               
item  that  has  a resale  value  of  $75  or  more; or  an  item                                                               
presented  in a  lot of  ten or  more similar  items, except  for                                                               
books, in  a seven-day  period by one  individual -  for example,                                                               
compact discs (CDs) that can be stolen and resold easily.                                                                       
Number 2219                                                                                                                     
MS. ACHEE  noted another  change in  Version J:   removal  of the                                                               
requirement to have  the name of the purchaser be  recorded.  She                                                               
explained  that   subsection  2(c)  allows  for   records  to  be                                                               
maintained by computer  and specifies that the  dealer "shall use                                                               
a  system that  guarantees  that a  record  cannot be  eliminated                                                               
after  entry".   She pointed  out that  Section 6,  added at  the                                                               
request of  the Anchorage Police Department  (APD), requires that                                                               
all items  that fall under  the reporting guidelines be  held for                                                               
30  days after  the  item is  received.   And  Section 7  clearly                                                               
defines pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers.                                                                                     
Number 2285                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI, referring  to Section  6, noted  that under  AS                                                               
08.76.040 there are  provisions for holding goods  for a specific                                                               
period of time before selling them.   She asked if [AS 08.76.040]                                                               
was revoked or  repealed, or whether Section 6 is  in addition to                                                               
the current statute.                                                                                                            
MS.  ACHEE  conveyed  her  understanding  that  it  would  be  in                                                               
addition  to the  existing statute.   She  said she  believes the                                                               
current  statute  includes  guidelines for  holding  items  after                                                               
they've been  pawned so that  the person  who pawned them  has an                                                               
opportunity to come back.                                                                                                       
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  offered her understanding  that AS  08.76.040 is                                                               
the  "Disposition  of  unredeemed  property"  and  will  stay  in                                                               
statute, and that Section 6 would be an additional requirement.                                                                 
MS. ACHEE clarified, "Just items that are sold outright."                                                                       
Number 2334                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI mentioned  that  she thought  the definition  of                                                               
secondhand dealer  was a  person who  "regularly engaged  in" the                                                               
business of purchasing.                                                                                                         
MS. ACHEE explained  that the word "regularly"  isn't included in                                                               
the actual statute.   She said some other  states' statutes refer                                                               
to people who  go to swap meets,  and how many times  a year they                                                               
do so.   She said  she'd intentionally left the  word "regularly"                                                               
out of [Version J] for clarity.                                                                                                 
TAPE 02-46, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2350                                                                                                                     
DAVID  HUDSON,  Captain,  Division   of  Alaska  State  Troopers,                                                               
Department  of  Public   Safety,  testified  via  teleconference,                                                               
noting  that he'd  spoken  with Detective  Bridges  with the  APD                                                               
today regarding  [Version J].   He stated, "Certainly,  I believe                                                               
that there's been excellent inroads  made into the intent and the                                                               
purpose of [HB 472]."                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES  asked, "Does  any department not  do this?"                                                               
He offered that  this issue "boils back to what  things the state                                                               
should do  and what things the  state shouldn't do."   He said he                                                               
doesn't understand  the purpose  of [HB  472], and  asked whether                                                               
the changes made  in [Version J] addressed his  concerns from the                                                               
last hearing.                                                                                                                   
Number 2309                                                                                                                     
MS. ACHEE  explained that Anchorage  is the only place  in Alaska                                                               
where pawnbrokers  and secondhand dealers are  required to report                                                               
at all.   She said she wouldn't have encouraged  [HB 472] to move                                                               
forward if  there were opposition  from any police  department in                                                               
the state.   She said  the police departments "seemed  very happy                                                               
to work with me on it."                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked  who pays for any  additional costs to                                                               
police  departments  associated  with  passage  of  HB  472,  and                                                               
whether it could be considered an unfunded mandate.                                                                             
Number 2270                                                                                                                     
MS. ACHEE  replied, "To  a small  degree, I  think this  could be                                                               
classified as  an unfunded  mandate for  the pawnshop  owners and                                                               
the secondhand  dealers."  She  said the police  departments that                                                               
are receiving the  reports have the option of  not doing anything                                                               
with those  reports - and  the cost would be  zero - or  they can                                                               
enter  the reports  into a  database and,  depending on  how they                                                               
received [the reports], the costs would vary.                                                                                   
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked about the  effective date and how  it will                                                               
affect  a  pawnshop  owner  in   rural  Alaska  who  hasn't  been                                                               
reporting  thus  far;  she  noted that  a  testifier  from  Delta                                                               
Junction had raised this concern at the last hearing.                                                                           
MS.  ACHEE   responded  that  the  concern   wasn't  resolved  in                                                               
[Version J].    She  noted  that  the  pawnshop  owner  in  Delta                                                               
Junction, under state law, should  have been recording every item                                                               
that came  into the  store, even if  the owner  wasn't reporting.                                                               
She  offered that  the  issue  of reporting  would  be to  simply                                                               
provide the records that should have been kept up to date.                                                                      
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked if pawnbrokers or  secondhand dealers must                                                               
start submitting written reports as  of the effective date, or if                                                               
they will  be required to provide  a full inventory of  the store                                                               
[of items received before the effective date].                                                                                  
MS. ACHEE  replied that "retroactive reporting"  is not addressed                                                               
in HB 472.                                                                                                                      
Number 2160                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said  the purpose of the statute is  to make sure                                                               
that the goods  coming into a pawnshop have not  been stolen, and                                                               
a pawnbroker or secondhand dealer  shouldn't have to report on an                                                               
item that  has sat  on the shelf  for the last  year and  a half.                                                               
She  surmised that  beginning with  the  effective date,  someone                                                               
would be  required to submit  records which, prior to  this time,                                                               
that person might  not have been obligated to submit.   She asked                                                               
if this is the sponsor's intent.                                                                                                
MS. ACHEE  replied in the  affirmative, and noted  that pawnshops                                                               
are required  to have these  records already,  whereas secondhand                                                               
dealers haven't had to do this yet.                                                                                             
Number 2107                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Captain  Hudson if a antique dealer                                                               
would be considered a secondhand dealer, by definition.                                                                         
CAPTAIN HUDSON  conveyed his  understanding that  some secondhand                                                               
dealers  aren't obligated  to report  in Anchorage.   He  gave an                                                               
example of  a business in  Anchorage named Play It  Again Sports:                                                               
prior to a change in ownership,  it was required to report to the                                                               
APD;  recently,  the  new  owner and  the  city  have  questioned                                                               
whether it is necessary for the store to report.                                                                                
Number 2046                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if  a secondhand bookstore would be                                                               
required to report also.                                                                                                        
CAPTAIN HUDSON deferred to the sponsor,  but added that if one is                                                               
in  the business  of purchasing  secondhand articles  for resale,                                                               
then that would include bookstores and antique dealers.                                                                         
MS.  ACHEE  said  she'd  discussed   this  issue  with  Detective                                                               
Bridges,  who was  unable  to testify  today; in  the  case of  a                                                               
bookstore, most items are not  going to fall under the guidelines                                                               
in Section 1  because [the item] won't [have a  serial number] or                                                               
a resale value of  $75.  She mentioned that it  is the same issue                                                               
with regard to antique dealers.                                                                                                 
Number 1972                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that  he has been through antique                                                               
shops, and said it "would be  a nightmare to try to inventory and                                                               
keep a record of."  He said there  could be a Coke bottle that is                                                               
worth more  than $75  dollars.   He said he  has no  problem with                                                               
pawnshops' reporting,  but there  could be some  potential issues                                                               
with trying to regulate secondhand stores.   He asked if this has                                                               
been done in the past.                                                                                                          
MS. ACHEE  replied that  the Municipality  of Anchorage  did have                                                               
statutes regulating secondhand  merchants.  She said  she has put                                                               
a lot of  thought into this issue and  agrees with Representative                                                               
Rokeberg that "we're getting into a  lot of gray areas, and we're                                                               
getting into  a lot  of places  where people  who didn't  have to                                                               
keep records or  do reporting before are going to  have to."  She                                                               
noted  that  pawnshop  owners  whom  she  has  spoken  with  have                                                               
expressed that  secondhand dealers  should be required  to record                                                               
and report also.   She said the  $75 limit was a  figure she came                                                               
up  with after  averaging out  all the  different recommendations                                                               
she'd  received from  pawnshops and  police officers.   She  said                                                               
that figure is "open to change."                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES  stated that  he was uncomfortable  with [HB
472] because of the unfunded mandate issue.                                                                                     
Number 1864                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES  moved  to  report CSHB  472,  version  22-                                                               
LS1519\J, Bannister,  3/19/02, out  of committee  with individual                                                               
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.                                                                          
MS. ACHEE  offered to work  with Representative Rokeberg  and his                                                               
staff  on any  concerns  before  HB 472  is  heard  in the  House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing  Committee   [which  Representative  Rokeberg                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG suggested  with  regard to  "secondhand"                                                               
that either there should be  exemptions or it should be tightened                                                               
up somehow.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  noted that current statutes  don't define either                                                               
a pawnbroker or a secondhand dealer.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG suggested  it isn't  appropriate to  put                                                               
pawnbrokers and secondhand  dealers "under the same  regime."  He                                                               
proposed that [Ms.  Achee] consider that [before HB  472 is heard                                                               
in the House Judiciary Standing Committee].                                                                                     
Number 1795                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI announced  that there  being no  objection, CSHB
472(L&C) was moved  out of the House Labor  and Commerce Standing                                                               
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called  an at-ease at 5:58 p.m..   She called the                                                               
meeting back to order at 6:00 p.m.                                                                                              
HB 443-TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING                                                                                            
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI announced  the  final order  of business,  HOUSE                                                               
BILL  NO. 443,  "An Act  retroactively extending  the application                                                               
and  licensing  deadlines  and amending  the  effective  date  of                                                               
certain  provisions   relating  to  regulation  of   persons  who                                                               
practice  tattooing  and  permanent  cosmetic  coloring  or  body                                                               
piercing; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  HALCRO   moved  to  adopt   version  22-LS1525\L,                                                               
Lauterbach, 3/28/02,  as the  working document.   There  being no                                                               
objection, Version L was before the committee.                                                                                  
Number 1698                                                                                                                     
SHARRON  O'DELL,  Staff  to Representative  Vic  Kohring,  Alaska                                                               
State   Legislature,  testified   on  behalf   of  Representative                                                               
Kohring,  sponsor.   Ms. O'Dell  informed the  committee that  in                                                               
2000 the  legislature passed  SB 34,  which addressed  health and                                                               
safety concerns  for the  tattooing and  body-piercing industries                                                               
by  placing those  industries under  licensing regulations  under                                                               
the    Board   of    Barbers   and    Hairdressers;   established                                                               
qualifications and  training requirements for  license applicants                                                               
and regulations  for shop  licenses; and  established application                                                               
deadlines as well as initial licensing dates.                                                                                   
MS. O'DELL explained that because  of the deadlines [the Division                                                               
of Occupational  Licensing, Department  of Commerce  and Economic                                                               
Development (DCED)]  had no mechanism,  grace period,  or appeals                                                               
process   for  dealing   with  someone   who'd  missed   the  new                                                               
application  deadline.     Several  qualified  practitioners  had                                                               
missed the new application deadline  because they were unaware of                                                               
the new regulations.  Therefore,  HB 443 extends the transitional                                                               
license  application  date  to provide  those  practitioners  the                                                               
opportunity  to apply  for a  transitional license.   Ms.  O'Dell                                                               
said the sponsor  doesn't intend to change  any qualifications or                                                               
regulations established in the passage of SB 34.                                                                                
MS. O'DELL announced that the  practitioners with which [she] has                                                               
spoken are all  in favor of the regulations.   The only complaint                                                               
surrounding SB  34 was that  not everyone had received  notice of                                                               
the new regulations,  although the [division] had  done its best.                                                               
Ms. O'Dell  explained that [the  division] developed  its mailing                                                               
list  from names  of business  licenses  that it  already had  or                                                               
business licenses  that had key words  indicating connection with                                                               
the  tattooing  and  body-piercing  industries.    The  list  was                                                               
developed from  [DCED's] interested-party  list, as well  as that                                                               
from   the  Department   of  Environmental   Conservation  (DEC).                                                               
Notices  were  also placed  in  the  newspapers.   However,  some                                                               
practitioners  never received  their notices  and didn't  see the                                                               
notices in the paper, thus missing the original deadline date.                                                                  
MS. O'DELL explained that [without  this legislation] a qualified                                                               
practitioner who missed  the July 1, 2001, deadline  will have to                                                               
close the business  and work for a competitor in  order to obtain                                                               
a license.   In one instance,  there is only one  practitioner in                                                               
the  area,  and  therefore  there  is no  one  under  which  this                                                               
practitioner can train.  Ms.  O'Dell pointed out an unintentional                                                               
result of SB  34:  a practitioner  of many years may  now have to                                                               
train under someone with a  few years' experience.  Therefore, HB
443 extends  the original  transitional license  application date                                                               
to  October 1,  2002.   Furthermore,  it  includes language  that                                                               
"freezes"  the  transitional  qualification period  to  a  period                                                               
prior  to July  1,  2001, the  original  application date,  which                                                               
means   applicants  would   need  to   have  qualified   for  the                                                               
transitional [license] by July 1, 2001.                                                                                         
MS. O'DELL addressed Sections 2 and  3 of HB 443, which deal with                                                               
the effective date  of the licensing requirement  and the related                                                               
regulations.   This date  had to be  changed because  the license                                                               
requirement  couldn't  be  prior   to  the  transitional  license                                                               
requirement  date.   Ms.  O'Dell  noted  that [the  sponsor]  has                                                               
worked closely  with the Division  of Occupational  Licensing and                                                               
with  DEC in  order to  establish  dates that  would resolve  the                                                               
aforementioned problem  without unreasonably delaying  the safety                                                               
regulations of SB 34 or allowing new people into the industry.                                                                  
Number 1437                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked how  many people  fell through  the cracks                                                               
with [SB 34].                                                                                                                   
MS. O'DELL  answered that 13  people were discovered  through the                                                               
division and [the sponsor's office];  however, there may be more.                                                               
In further response, Ms. O'Dell  said although the division isn't                                                               
doing anything  extra with the notice  for HB 443, there  will be                                                               
additional   notices  in   certain   newspapers.     Furthermore,                                                               
[Representative Kohring] has  put out a news release  for HB 443,                                                               
which will  hopefully help.   Ms.  O'Dell acknowledged  that some                                                               
folks might  [not know about  this]; however, HB 443  attempts to                                                               
address as many  [as possible] of those who  were unfairly missed                                                               
the first time.                                                                                                                 
Number 1352                                                                                                                     
MS. O'DELL, in response to  Representative Meyer, said she didn't                                                               
know [how  many tattoo and  body-piercing businesses  there are],                                                               
but  noted that  the division  has  said it  has 2,600  [barbers,                                                               
hairdressers, tattooers,  and body piercers] on  its mailing list                                                               
for renotification.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  recalled that  a tattoer  was placed  on the                                                               
[Board of Barbers and Hairdressers].                                                                                            
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  asked if  the  12-month  requirement refers  to                                                               
practice in Alaska or anywhere.   She recalled receiving a letter                                                               
from someone  with a shop outside  [the state] who was  unable to                                                               
make the July 1 deadline due to work outside of Alaska.                                                                         
MS. O'DELL clarified that this  individual owns two shops, one in                                                               
Anchorage and  one in  Idaho; although  the practitioners  in the                                                               
Anchorage shop  obtained their license, [the  owner] can't return                                                               
to practice  in his own shop  because he can't license  his shop,                                                               
since he  isn't a  licensed practitioner.   In  further response,                                                               
she said that under the  qualifications established by SB 34, she                                                               
believes  the  12-month  practice   requirement  would  refer  to                                                               
practice in  Alaska or under  a licensed practitioner in  a state                                                               
that has qualifications that meet those set forth in SB 34.                                                                     
Number 1045                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page  2, line 3, and asked if                                                               
the  "June  30,   2001"  date  was  maintained   because  of  the                                                           
uncodified law in Section 3.                                                                                                    
MS. O'DELL  explained that it  freezes the qualification  date as                                                               
set  forth  in  SB  34;  individuals  would  have  to  have  been                                                               
qualified for the license at  the application deadline of July 1,                                                               
2001.    In  further  response, Ms.  O'Dell  confirmed  that  the                                                               
current  12-month period  wouldn't qualify  for experience.   She                                                               
said HB 443  doesn't intend to continue to extend  the period for                                                               
the transitional license.                                                                                                       
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  surmised  that  the  Division  of  Occupational                                                               
Licensing is  fine with HB  443, as is  the Board of  Barbers and                                                               
Hairdressers and the tattooers and body piercers.                                                                               
MS. O'DELL  informed the  committee that  the board  doesn't meet                                                               
again until  October.  Those on  the board that "we"  have spoken                                                               
with are in  support of HB 443, provided  that the qualifications                                                               
established under SB 34 are not changed.                                                                                        
Number 0933                                                                                                                     
MARY  SIROKY,  Manager,  Information  Education  &  Coordination,                                                               
Division   of    Statewide   Public   Service,    Department   of                                                               
Environmental  Conservation   (DEC),  noted   that  she   is  the                                                               
legislative  liaison for  the department.   Mr.  Siroky explained                                                               
that  under  SB 34,  the  department  was required  to  establish                                                               
standards for  sanitation and cleanliness for  tattooing and body                                                               
piercing,  which it  has done.    She noted  that the  department                                                               
doesn't  have a  problem with  HB 443,  although it  put forth  a                                                               
fiscal note  in order to renotice  the regulations to be  in step                                                               
with  those   regulations  of   [the  Division   of  Occupational                                                               
Licensing].   Therefore,  the  regulations  won't be  implemented                                                               
until December 2002.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  asked whether the department  has $3,000 to                                                               
send out the notices without attaching a fiscal note.                                                                           
MS. SIROKY  answered that the  department doesn't have  any extra                                                               
money;  furthermore,   if  proposed  cuts  are   maintained,  the                                                               
department  won't have  a program  to  inspect body-piercing  and                                                               
tattooing shops.  In further  response, Ms. Siroky explained that                                                               
the $3,000 would  pay for the public notice in  four journals and                                                               
for postage for  the mailing list.  The  original notice occurred                                                               
in  nine newspapers,  but  since  this is  a  second notice,  the                                                               
number of  newspapers in which the  notice will run has  been cut                                                               
back.  Furthermore,  the notice is provided  on the public-notice                                                               
pages on the state web site.                                                                                                    
Number 0787                                                                                                                     
MS. SIROKY, in response to  Chair Murkowski, said she didn't know                                                               
how the 10-15 people slipped  through, because notice was done in                                                               
nine major  papers and sent to  those on the mailing  list, and a                                                               
press  release  was  put  out.   In  response  to  Representative                                                               
Rokeberg,  Ms.  Siroky  said they'd  looked  through  the  Yellow                                                               
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  pointed out that  many of those [who  missed the                                                               
notices] are located in the Matanuska-Susitna area.                                                                             
MS.  SIROKY acknowledged  that there  was no  public notice  done                                                               
there.   She assured the committee  that this time there  will be                                                               
public notice there.                                                                                                            
Number 0642                                                                                                                     
TODD GIPSON,  Two Moons Tattooing, testified  via teleconference,                                                               
saying he'd  spoken with many  who knew these  [regulations] were                                                               
going through.   Many people  had discussed getting things  in on                                                               
time,  while   others  said  the   state  can't   regulate  this.                                                               
Therefore, Mr.  Gipson asked if  those who are filing  [are those                                                               
who'd said the state can't regulate this industry].                                                                             
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that she  didn't believe anyone knew who                                                               
had been lost through the cracks.                                                                                               
Number 0583                                                                                                                     
LAURA    IVANOFF,   Two    Moons    Tattooing,   testified    via                                                               
teleconference, informing the committee  that she has spoken with                                                               
many of those  who had difficulty with the deadline.   From those                                                               
discussions, Ms. Ivanoff said [some  believe] the State of Alaska                                                               
can't  regulate  tattooing  and  piercing.    Furthermore,  [some                                                               
believe]  there is  a grandfather  right such  that the  Board of                                                               
Barbers  [and Hairdressers]  can't  tell  tattooers and  piercers                                                               
what to do.   When it has been explained that  [the board and the                                                               
state]  can  [regulate], however,  he  said  "we" [support]  this                                                               
because of cross-contamination.                                                                                                 
Number 0406                                                                                                                     
JOE  SCHOOLCRAFT,  Owner,  Two  Moons  Tattooing,  testified  via                                                               
teleconference,  echoing  the testimony  of  Mr.  Gipson and  Ms.                                                               
Ivanoff  in regard  to the  many  people who  don't believe  [the                                                               
state] has the  power to regulate [tattooers  and body piercers].                                                               
Mr.  Schoolcraft said  he didn't  believe [HB  443] was  fair for                                                               
those who went  [through the process under SB 34]  and pushed for                                                               
this.  "The industry needs to be cleaned up," he charged.                                                                       
JEFF MACAMBER  testified via teleconference, speaking  briefly in                                                               
support of HB 443.                                                                                                              
Number 0207                                                                                                                     
GAIL McCANN,  Owner/Operator, The Electrolysis  Clinic, testified                                                               
via teleconference.   She explained that  The Electrolysis Clinic                                                               
provides permanent  hair removal  and cosmetics;  she said  SB 34                                                               
and HB  443 impact  more than  those in  the tattooing  and body-                                                               
piercing industries.   Ms. McCann announced that she  is in favor                                                               
of passing  HB 443  because she believes  people should  have the                                                               
opportunity to  continue their livelihood regardless  of why they                                                               
missed the original deadline.   She related her belief that these                                                               
three  industries  -  tattooing,  body  piercing,  and  permanent                                                               
cosmetics - need  to have oversight.  As the  public becomes more                                                               
informed,  she  believes  those who  are  incompetent  and  don't                                                               
follow the health standards will fall by the wayside.                                                                           
TAPE 02-47, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
MS. McCANN  remarked that all  [three industries] need  to follow                                                               
the  medically  approved  standards  for  sterilization  so  that                                                               
practitioners are  protected against  the spread  of communicable                                                               
diseases.  She urged support of HB 443.                                                                                         
Number 0121                                                                                                                     
KEVIN  McKINLEY, Owner,  Body Piercing  Unlimited, testified  via                                                               
teleconference.   Although he  said people have  done a  good job                                                               
trying to  get everyone licensed,  there is the  possibility that                                                               
some of  the smaller  businesses fell  through the  cracks, since                                                               
this  is the  first time  that this  industry has  been licensed.                                                               
Mr. McKinley said he would hate  to see people use this licensing                                                               
[requirement] as  a competitive  tool in order  to weed  out [the                                                               
smaller businesses].   He said he feels [HB 443]  is a good thing                                                               
for those who did miss  the deadline.  Furthermore, extending the                                                               
deadline for six months isn't going to hurt anyone's business.                                                                  
Number 0244                                                                                                                     
JEFFERY   MARTIN,   Muttley's   Tattoo  Clinic,   testified   via                                                               
teleconference.    He  informed  the  committee  that  he  hadn't                                                               
received notification  of the license  application until  a month                                                               
after  the deadline,  even though  he  was on  the mailing  list;                                                               
therefore, he'd  gone to Representative Kohring's  office and the                                                               
meeting of  the Board  of Barbers and  Hairdressers.   Mr. Martin                                                               
explained that  if HB  443 doesn't  pass, then  not only  will he                                                               
lose his business,  but four employees will lose their  jobs.  He                                                               
emphasized that he  more than met the requirements  prior to July                                                               
1,  2001.   He  also emphasized  that he  is  only requesting  an                                                               
extension of the application dates.                                                                                             
Number 0423                                                                                                                     
ANDY KOPCZENSKI,  American Tattoo, testified  via teleconference.                                                               
Mr. Kopczenski  said that  [HB 443]  looks good  and that  a six-                                                               
month   extension   won't   hurt   anyone.     In   response   to                                                               
Representative Kott, Mr.  Kopczenski affirmed that he  was on the                                                               
mailing  list, was  part  of the  inception  of this  application                                                               
process, and had received notification.                                                                                         
CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed public testimony.                                                                                        
Number 0577                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  moved  to  report CSHB  443,  version  22-                                                               
LS1525\L, Lauterbach,  3/28/02, out of committee  with individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying  fiscal note.   There being                                                               
no objection, CSHB 443(L&C) was moved  out of the House Labor and                                                               
Commerce Standing Committee.                                                                                                    
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Labor and  Commerce Standing Committee  meeting was  adjourned at                                                               
6:45 p.m.                                                                                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects