Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
04/10/2015 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB131 | |
| HB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 131-LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/HAIR DRESSING
3:20:08 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to the licensure of nail
technicians and hairdressers; relating to the practice of
manicuring; and providing for an effective date."
3:20:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, stated she
previously introduced this bill [in the 28th Legislature] on
behalf of a member of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
She advised that the board was adamant in its desire to help
improve the health, safety, and hygiene for nail technicians and
salons. The board wants to professionalize Alaska's nail
technician workforce. This bill would enhance the training
requirements from 12 theory hours without any exam to 250
practical and theory hours with a state board examination. A
manicure or pedicure can be necessary for the elderly,
physically disabled, diabetic, and those not able to personally
attend to their hygienic needs. Alaskans should not need to
worry about contracting infections in a nail salon from improper
sanitation or improper use of tools.
3:23:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS offered her belief that nail technicians
should be able to identify diseases and administer the
appropriate procedures, keeping hygiene and safety to the
highest standards. She stated that consumers and nail
technicians will appreciate the additional training requirements
that can lead to greater safety and statewide implementation of
hygiene practices in nail technology.
3:23:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern that the bill does not
have a grandfather clause for nail technicians who currently
provide services. She recognized HB 131 has a quasi-grandfather
clause with requirements as a condition of license renewal.
However, she expressed concern about this might affect the "mom-
pop" businesses or single mothers who are trying to support
their children as manicurists. She cautioned that 250 hours of
training, or essentially six weeks to two months of fulltime
effort, could mean these manicurists might not be able to work
simultaneously. She expressed hope that consideration will be
given to grandfathering in those who have been in the profession
for a while.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS acknowledged that she has passed on the
foregoing concern to the board chair [Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers], who was adamant that this is a health and safety
issue for Alaskans. She understood the business concerns and
mentioned that perhaps the issue to accommodate current
practitioners can be resolved in another committee or on the
House floor.
3:25:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether the board, [Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers], was asking for these changes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered that the board requested the
change, but she deferred to her staff to more fully respond.
3:26:18 PM
TYSON GALLAGHER, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Lynn
Gattis, stated that a letter from the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers was forthcoming.
3:26:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO said that he did not see any letters of
support or opposition from nail technicians, just from board
members or consumers. He expressed concern that there were not
comments from anyone who will be impacted under this statute.
MR. GALLAGHER related his understanding one letter in members'
packets was from a licensed manicurist. He added that some of
the licensed [barbers and hairdresser] currently practice
manicuring.
3:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS added that she has gone to nail
technicians for the past 10 years in the Lower 48 and Alaska.
She offered that many nail technicians are Asian and most were
trained in the Lower 48. She offered her belief that it was not
uncommon for practicing nail technicians to have acquired 250 to
400 hours of training, which is very different from the minimal
8-12 hours of training required in Alaska. She further believed
that the current technicians are fine with the bill.
3:28:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO referred to the fiscal note and asked for
further clarification on whether the department will absorb the
costs to adopt regulations due to the proposed regulations being
combined with other projects. He suggested that the department
might need to respond since it seemed as though the division has
made conflicting comments on being able to absorb the cost of
adopting regulations.
3:29:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to pages 3 and 4, [proposed
Section 6] and noted a different standard seems to exist for
large and small communities.
MR. GALLAGHER referred to Section 6, [AS 08.13.160] (d), which
lists the exemption for areas where licensing provisions do not
apply. However, this geographic stipulation was not addressed
in this bill. He suggested that a limited number of manicurists
practice in some areas, but deferred to the board to respond.
3:30:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any changes were being made
to AS 08.13.160(d).
MR. GALLAGHER answered yes. He referred to page 4, lines 4-7,
which would remove two [paragraphs] that relate to the practice
of manicuring by a student as part of a 12-hour course and
exempts the shampoo staff from licensure. The reason to remove
[paragraph (2)] was due to removing the 12-hour practice
certification. In addition, the sponsor worked with the board
and determined the shampoo person was not a professional that
needed licensure.
3:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood the exemption was already in
statute.
MR. GALLAGHER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that if this bill addresses
health and safety, she quesioned whether those small communities
should also be subject to the additional training.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS deferred to the board.
3:33:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for further clarification on whether
the board verbally indicated its support for the bill.
MR. GALLAGHER answered yes; it his understanding that the entire
[Board of Barbers and Hairdressers] supports the bill.
3:33:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether the training schools in the
state support HB 131.
MR. GALLAGHER answered that the sponsor has not had any contact
with the training facilities; however, two schools are in the
Anchorage area.
3:34:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether this training will impact
consumer costs for services. She indicated that nail technician
services in the Lower 48 are much less. She understood the
importance of health and safety in the industry, but asked
whether it will raise costs for manicures and pedicures in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said she considered these services as a
supply and demand issue. Certainly, as sponsor, she can't tell
a business what they should charge, but she was unsure the
additional hours of training will affect the cost of manicures.
3:35:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether the sponsor has heard from
nail technicians who anticipate charging more for services.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered no.
3:35:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO appreciated that there are schools in Alaska
so technicians will not need to travel out-of-state to acquire
the proposed additional training for licensure. However, he
suggested that if two schools are located in Anchorage and the
bill requires licensees to submit to 250 hours of education, it
may require nail technicians to spend a significant amount of
time away from home. He expressed concern about the training
costs for licensed nail technicians, therefore, it certainly
seemed they may decide they must charge more to recover their
training costs.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said she hoped the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers could have that discussion. She deferred to the
board, but related her understanding that the board needs this
bill to move the industry forward.
3:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked whether these functions will be
handled by the existing Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered yes.
3:37:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER said he did not see language for any
designation of seats for a manicurist.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered that this bill does not address
board composition, but focuses on training and education for
health and safety aspects of nail technicians.
3:37:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for further clarification on
grandfathering since some technicians may not meet the 250 hours
or may not have received training, so the supply of technicians
could go down and costs could go up.
MR. GALLAGHER understood the concern, noting that the changes in
training would ultimately be a policy call. He said that since
the state issues licenses, it effectively offers its seal of
approval that the person has acquired skills and training
sufficient to offer services to Alaskans. The state wants to
stand behind safety regulations to protect consumers. He
offered his belief that the market will bear costs and certainly
the potential exists for costs to be passed on to consumers;
however, he felt that will balance out in a competitive market.
He noted approximately 1,000 people hold manicurist licenses.
3:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES questioned whether students enrolled in
the 250-hour course could practice, similar to hairdressers
enrolled in training programs, and offer nail technician
services at a lower cost.
MR. GALLAGHER answered yes. He referred to proposed Section 9,
which adds a student permit section. The Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development currently offers two
levels of manicurist licenses. One class, the manicurist
requires 12 hours of training and the second class, the advanced
manicurist, requires 250 hours of training and passing an exam
for licensure. This bill would raise the minimum requirement
for nail technicians to 250 hours and passing a mandatory exam,
which essentially will merge the two current licenses into one.
These changes provide more hands-on training and experience for
students, including instituting student permits.
3:40:43 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether any portion of the training was
offered on-line via web training.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said she was not sure. She deferred to
the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, although she believed the
board's goal was to accommodate rural area technicians on-line,
in particular, in terms of hygiene, health, and safety aspects.
3:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked whether the schools in Alaska have the
capacity to provide a 250-hour training program.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS deferred to the board to respond.
3:41:56 PM
DEANNA PRUHS, Member, State Board of Barbers & Hairdressers,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), spoke in support of HB 131. She stated that she has
been licensed hairdresser in Alaska for 30 of the 34 years she
has worked in the profession. She has served for three years on
the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers and has been working on
this bill during her tenure. She noted that the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers has been working on these health and
safety issues for eight years. She offered to respond to some
questions, noting that the training for the 250-hour advanced
endorsement was already offered by the division. This bill
would make the advanced endorsement the standard and eliminate
the 12-hour manicurist license that allows people to work in
salons without possessing any knowledge pertaining to health,
safety, and hygiene necessary for nail technicians.
3:43:38 PM
MR. PRUHS reported that the bill would require passing a written
national examination from the NIC [National Nail Technology],
without requiring licensees participate in a practical exam.
The national exam is offered online and is provided in several
languages, including English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Korean.
Candidates can take practice written exams and obtain additional
information online. In addition, schools also offer manicuring
as part of hairdressing education and training. The two
manicuring schools in Anchorage already teach the 250-hour
course, but without the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
requiring the mandatory hours, some students only elect to take
the 12-hour course. She cautioned that this creates health
issues since manicurists use cuticle scissors, razors, cheese
graters, and electric drills to remove skin and file nail beds
for the application of acrylic and gel in order to install false
nail applications on hands and feet. Manicurists also use
chemicals to remove calluses and acetone to soak off products
for removal. If not done properly, it can take months for the
nail bed to recover and clients can lose their nails. She
reported that California raised its nail technician standards in
2004 when some celebrity lost her thumbnail. She pointed out
that sanitation was crucial and it only takes a miniscule
opening in the skin to allow bacteria into the system. She
reported that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
has had several complaints in the past year from communities
from Soldotna to Fairbanks.
3:46:00 PM
MS. PRUHS said one advantage of adopting new regulations is that
Alaska licensees would have an opportunity for reciprocity in
other jurisdictions, since the 12-hour manicuring license is not
recognized in any jurisdiction. Thus Alaska's manicurist
licensees cannot practice in other jurisdictions until they
first qualify via state board testing or attend school to meet
the minimum requirements.
MS. PRUHS stated that the 12-hour manicurist licensee obtains
his/her professional license by taking safety and sanitation
course without any practical training. She offered that
"professional" is defined as obtaining standards of education
and training that prepare members of the profession with
particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform the role of
that profession. In her view, the 12-hour safety & sanitation
course does not fit that definition, she said.
3:47:03 PM
MS. PRUHS pointed out that when she accepted the board position
with the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, she understood that
her role was to provide state agencies information on specific
issues, provide regulations for the industry, and ensure
consumer protection. This board has been trying to get minimum
requirements increased for the past eight years. She emphasized
that this bill is very important to the board. She has heard
horror stories, seen photographs, and observed clients with
infections or those subjected to gross negligence. She
emphasized the importance of making the manicurist license mean
something by bringing manicurists up to national standards and
keeping the public safe. She characterized this as a very
important issue.
3:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed two concerns. First, her
community has a large Hmong and Laotian population and she
wanted to know whether the test will be given in those
languages.
MS. PRUHS was unsure, but she suggested the exam could be
transcribed or given orally. She suggested that those
applicants who have already passed the 12-hour exam could likely
pass this one. In further response to Representative LeDoux,
she said that the same proctors who administer the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers exams would administer an oral exam.
3:49:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her second concern, which was
the lack of any provision for those already in the business to
meet the new requirements. She acknowledged she has seen the
previously mentioned photographs that illustrated infections
clients suffered and agreed that manicurists need regulation,
but it seemed as though on the job training and work should
count for something. She said that many manicurists are single
mothers trying to support their children and they cannot afford
to take two months off to take a 250-hour course.
MS. PRUHS agreed. She assured members that the board does not
want to put anyone out of business, but wants to adopt
regulations increasing training and education requirements. She
related her understanding that those technicians who are already
licensed can renew their licenses, thereby allowing additional
time to achieve the endorsement by taking the written exam.
This bill does not require them to go back to school, but
manicurists must demonstrate adequate knowledge of hygiene,
health and safety aspects of nail technology.
3:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 6, lines 6-11, noting the
transition language seems to allow licensees to be grandfathered
in until their license renewal, but then licensees must meet all
licensing requirements, including the hours and test.
MS. PRUHS related her understanding that the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers would give licensees time to prepare to take
and the state board exam and submit proof with their renewal.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the drafter might
explain the transitional language.
MS. PRUHS suggested that licensees take the board testing to
receive the endorsement.
3:53:22 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Acting Director, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), agreed with
Representative LeDoux that any licensees who currently have not
taken the 250-hour training course must meet the new requirement
prior to their August 2017 license renewal, which means
licensees would have two years to comply.
3:54:09 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether she felt that was adequate time.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that it depends on the individual
circumstance and if the licensee could find 250 hours of time
during two years to take the course, it would be; however,
perhaps it wouldn't be adequate time for some.
3:54:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how many of the total licensees
currently have 250 hours of training.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that she does not have figures and she did
not think she could easily compile them.
3:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether any itinerant trainers
could fly in and provide training.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that it could be an option so long as the
instructor met the school or Board of Barber and Hairdresser's
instructor requirements.
3:55:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for further clarification on the
total number of licensed manicurists. She asked for the total
numbers of manicurists licensed under the 12-hour course and how
many licensees have advanced manicurist licenses, or those who
have been licensed after taking the 250 hours of training.
3:56:10 PM
MS. CHAMBERS answered that the total number of licensed
manicurists at the end of FY [fiscal year] 2014 was 1,261, with
12 licensees holding the advanced manicurist endorsement. She
stated the foregoing 12 manicurists proved to the department and
board that they had met the requirements. She was uncertain how
many of the 1,261 licensees did not apply for the advanced
manicurist endorsement but had acquired the 250 hours of
training since that data is not being tracked by the division.
3:57:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES referred to the exemption for communities
under 1,000 in population. She asked for further clarification
if exemptions from health and safety requirements exist or if
the exemptions for smaller communities were related to something
else.
MS. CHAMBERS recalled that the mechanical administrator's
license was subject to a rural exemption depending on the number
of miles from a community or if the population was under a
certain amount.
3:58:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether any health and safety
complaints have been filed against manicurists in Alaska and
whether any of the photographs circulated [in the Capitol] were
derived from cases in Alaska.
MS. CHAMBERS answered yes; that the division has received some
complaints, although she didn't have the exact number. She was
uncertain of the origin of the photographs, but deferred to the
board to respond.
3:59:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled that the director previously
indicated that manicurists who have the 12-hour training program
could be examined orally. She had asked whether applicants for
manicurist licenses can take the exam in Hmong or Laotian. She
referred to page 1 of the bill, noting the language indicates
that manicurists are not required to take an exam.
MS. CHAMBERS agreed that applicants for manicurist licenses are
not required to take an exam, but applicants for the advanced
manicurist licenses, requiring 250 hours of training, must pass
the exam.
4:00:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone can give the oral
exam in other languages, such as Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, or
to other ethnic groups who live in her community who are seeking
manicurist licenses.
MS. CHAMBERS stated that the division makes every effort to
accommodate candidates who cannot perform examinations in the
more traditional structures. She said that it would be the
division's priority to obtain translation services and provide
an oral exam so manicurists can remain in business.
4:01:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the director's statement was
a commitment that the exams will be given in the language spoken
by people in her district who are seeking licensure.
MS. CHAMBERS offered to make every effort to do so, in
partnership with the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
4:01:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO questioned the zero fiscal note since it
seemed some costs would be incurred in adopting regulations. He
asked for further clarification on the zero fiscal note.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that the division worked with the Board of
Barbers and Hairdresser's staff to determine whether the
proposed manicurist regulations could be rolled into an existing
regulation project. Since the $2,500 average estimate for
adopting regulations covers postage and mailing, the division
decided that incorporating this project would not add a
significant increase. She acknowledged that the division
proposes fiscal notes in instances in which a board has not
budgeted or anticipated adopting any regulations. In this
instance, the division determined that the proposed regulations
could be worked in and save costs to licensees.
4:03:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO argued that most boards have ongoing
projects that are incorporated into the board fees and even in
those instances, the fiscal impact [was reflected in the fiscal
note]. He expressed concern that the regulatory costs were
being absorbed by the division; however, adopting regulations
does not come without some cost. Yet, the division has decided
not to absorb the costs in other circumstances. He cautioned
that the division needs to represent the true cost of a bill,
since it is important for the legislature to know the monetary
effect of specific statutory changes.
4:04:49 PM
GLENDA LEDFORD, Chair, Alaska Board of Barbers and Hairdressers,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), stated that she has served on the board for six years
and currently serves as the board chair. She indicated that she
is currently licensed as a manicurist, barber, esthetician, and
permanent cosmetics, as well as holding a license as an
instructor for hairdressing. She offered her full support for
this bill along with the other board members. She stated that
this issue has been before the board prior to her serving on the
board. She also serves on the National-Interstate Council of
State Boards [of Cosmetology]. She stated that the council
works on regulations that each state abides by and has found the
Alaska's manicurist requirements are "a laughing stock" in this
group. She said that Connecticut was the only state that falls
below Alaska and they simply do not require any license. She
offered her belief that 250 hours of training places Alaska's
requirements for manicurists in the mid-range as compared to
other states. Alaska's licensees cannot practice in other
jurisdictions so when Alaska's transient population, and
especially the military, who obtain licensure in Alaska and move
to another state cannot practice. Basically, Alaska charges
manicurists a fee for a license. She urged members to examine
this bill in terms of the safety and sanitation aspects that the
public deserves. She said she owns a school [Glenda's Salon and
Training Center] in Wasilla. She recapped the requirements for
the 12-hour manicurist license, which basically requires
applicants to read four chapters and pass a written test, apply
for license, and pay the appropriate fees. She expressed
concern since the foregoing program does not teach manicurists
anything about the tools they will use, how to cleanse or handle
them, or how to protect themselves and their clients. Further,
with an increasing aging population, including diabetic clients,
if a manicurist uses the wrong tool and clips the diabetic's
skin, it could result in loss of toe or foot or other
complications.
4:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether nail salons are inspected
for compliance with health and safety procedures or if the
responsibility falls on the nail technicians.
MS. LEDFORD answered that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) does perform health inspections. The
inspector for the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers checks to
see whether manicurists have current licenses.
4:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES related her understanding that a small
number of the 1,200 nail technicians hold advanced manicurist
licenses. She expressed concern that under HB 131 many of the
1,200 will need to comply with the 250-hour course. She then
asked whether all training schools in Alaska currently offer the
250-hour course or whether some only offer the 12-hour
manicurist course.
MS. LEDFORD answered that she believes many of the 12-hour
licensees have been to California and other places in the Lower
48 and have at least 250 hours of training. In addition, she
was scheduled to take state board exams on April 28, 2015 for
licensing advanced manicurists, plus she spoke with an advanced
manicurist in Anchorage who owns a nail technician school so the
course is available. Some manicurist have at least 250 hours of
training, but have currently opted to apply for the manicurist
license [but not the advanced manicurist license].
4:11:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether this bill offers reciprocity
for those who have met the minimum 250 hours of training
required under the bill.
MS. LEDFORD answered yes; any applicants who can prove they have
had 250 hours of training can apply for licensure for
reciprocity under Alaska's statutes.
4:11:51 PM
JEANINE ABAAY, Public Member, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
stated she has served as the public member for the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers for two years. When she discovered
manicurists only had 12 hours of sanitation training to qualify
for licensure in Alaska, she was deeply concerned. In fact, she
has found herself making certain the nail technicians she uses
have taken the 250-hour training course in the Lower 48. She
has not given salons her business if their technicians only have
taken a 12-hour sanitation course and hold a manicurist license.
She related a personal scenario in which she had a pedicure,
encountered some bleeding, and contracted an infection. She
finds increased training to obtain a manicurist licensure to be
a deep and grave public safety issue in Alaska. In response to
questions on the fiscal note, she related her understanding that
the nail schools currently have the curriculum and the state
owns the exams so she supported the DCCED's zero fiscal note.
In closing, she said the board was in full support of HB 131.
She found the lack of regulations and oversight an embarrassment
for the state.
4:14:35 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 131.
4:14:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the bill as currently
written does not have a grandfather clause for manicurists who
have practiced their profession for a long time. She asked
whether the board would have any objection to adding such a
clause.
MS.LEDFORD suggested that grandfathering in for reciprocity
would require some stipulations, including proof of education
and work experience, and whether the training was acquired in
another state or if the manicurists achieved the hours by
working under an advanced manicurist authorized to instruct.
She offered her belief that agreement was possible to
grandfather in existing manicurists.
4:16:12 PM
MS. LEDFORD offered that the aforementioned testing she referred
to was related to the 12-hour sanitation course. She assumed
that these individuals must have taken the exam for
certification in their native language or they were able to take
an oral exam to qualify.
4:16:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated the statute as written indicates
manicurists are not required to take an exam.
MS.LEDFORD commented that students who take the 12-hour course
are given a test at the end of the class.
4:17:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX was unsure whether any exam was required
by the state. She referred to page 1, lines 11-13 of HB 131,
which read, " ... [THE BOARD MAY NOT REQUIRE AN APPLICANT FOR
LICENSURE AS A MANICURIST TO TAKE OR PASS AN EXAMINATION ...."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed her concern about the
grandfather clause even though currently licensed manicurists
will have a two-year period to obtain the additional hours. She
acknowledged that some manicurists received their training out-
of-state training would could meet or exceed the new
requirements, but other manicurists were not trained in the
Lower 48. She asked whether the board would be amenable to
substituting some work experience to qualify for the [proposed
250] training hours. Thus those manicurists who were licensed
as manicurists based on the 12-hour course, who have worked for
five years could use some of the experience to meet the 250-hour
training course required under the bill.
MS.LEDFORD answered that she could only speak for herself and
not on behalf of the board. She offered her belief that those
manicurists who can pass the state examination for the nail
technician license that will be put in place under the bill
should be able to resume working under their licenses.
[Public testimony was previously closed on HB 131.]
4:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he met with Ms. Pruhs and Ms.
Abaay and he agreed that something must be done to improve the
situation; however, there must be some kind of design that meets
somewhere in the middle. Certainly, it wouldn't work to have
the 1,200 currently licensed nail technicians out of work. He
suggested the state might provide inspections of nail salons and
observe nail technicians, which could be one means of
grandfathering existing manicurists.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES offered a willingness to work with sponsor
on grandfathering of manicurists.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said she also would like to see
grandfathering in for those manicurists who have worked as nail
technicians for a long time.
4:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES moved to report HB 131 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
4:21:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected. He noted the bill does not
have a next committee of referral. He asked whether this meant
there was a tacit agreement that it would be modified on the
[House] floor.
4:22:51 PM
CHAIR OLSON suggested that one alternative would be to work on
HB 131 during the interim or to develop an amendment to address
grandfathering in of manicurists. He offered his belief that
the bill has merits, but was time sensitive given the need for
health and safety improvements for manicurists.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated she has talked to the sponsor
and believes the remaining issues can be worked out. She said
she felt comfortable moving the bill from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO offered that it was important to have the
minimum 250-hour requirement for manicurists to obtain
licensure; however, he maintained his concern with regard to
those practitioners who do not currently meet that requirement,
as well as for costs they may incur to get certified. Still, he
agreed it was important to protect the public's health.
4:24:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, HB 131 was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:25:05 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:25 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.