Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/01/2002 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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 Pages. 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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|