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 VIC KOHRING, SPONSOR, testified in support of the legislation. He observed that he had been contacted by businesses that had trouble meeting application deadlines and would likely go out of business without statutory modification. In 2000, the Legislature passed SB 34 to address health and safety concerns by bringing tattoo and body piercing practitioners under the regulation and licensing requirement of AS 08.13, which deals with Barbers and Hairdressers. The legislation established qualification and training requirements for license applicants, regulations for shop licenses, and sets application deadline and initial licensing dates. The legislation addressed the application deadline. Representative Kohring noted that because the 2000 legislation contained a date deadline, it did not allow the department any mechanism for a grace period or appeal process for an applicant that missed the new license application deadline. The application is for a transitional license. The transitional license would be granted to existing practitioners to allow them to keep practicing under the new license and regulation law. The intent is to give qualified parishioners that missed the initial application deadline the opportunity to apply for a transitional deadline. The intent is not to change any of the qualifications or regulations established by SB 34 Representative Kohring would change the application deadline [from July 1, 2001, to October 1, 2002] and the licensing requirement date. He observed that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers passed a resolution in support of the legislation. Vice-Chair Bunde questioned how many times the deadline would need to be extended. SHARRON O'DELL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING, explained that the original deadline was July 2, 2001. The department created their mailing list from catch phrases in existing business license, such as permanent coloring. There are some businesses that do not have such verbiage in their licenses and were not notified of the deadline. She observed that they have a list of thirteen that did not receive notice. Representative Hudson asked if the legislation changes any of the regulatory standards. Ms. O'Dell clarified that no qualifications would be changed. All of the requirements were established in the previous legislation. She reiterated that notifications were made. Some of the businesses were not easily recognized for notification, since it is a brand new license. She noted that 13 practitioners were missed. Representative Hudson questioned the need for a $3.3 thousand dollar fiscal note. Representative John Davies observed that one of the persons appointed to the board failed to license themselves. He questioned why the date needed to be changed. Ms. O'Dell clarified that section 2 pertain to the license requirement. A license cannot be required prior to the application deadline. The later deadline would allow the division time to process applications and send notifications, test new applicants and allow applicants to pass the test. She noted that licenses are currently being issued. Representative John Davies questioned why the requirement to have a license to be on the board needed to be changed. MARY SIROKY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, spoke in support of the legislation. She noted regulations for sanitary standards have been drafted and have gone through the public process. Under the legislation, the regulations would be re-noticed and put through another public process. TAPE HFC 02 - 76, Side B  Ms. Siroky observed that public notices were published in 9 newspapers; the division sent out 2,500 letters. The fiscal note would provide funding for public notice in three newspapers. CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, provided information on the legislation. She observed that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers support the legislation. The legislation moves forward several sections of the law from July 1, to December 1, 2002. There is one board member that has applied for his license and she anticipates that he will obtain his license prior to July 1, 2002. She explained that grandfather provisions would allow practitioners who had practiced in the last 44 months to forego the one-year apprenticeship under a licensed practitioner. The initial practitioners would only have to pass the test. A number of persons that have missed the deadline would be required to meet the apprenticeship requirement if the deadline is not extended. Approximately eight persons have received licenses. In response to a question by Representative Davies, Ms. Reardon noted that the board member applicant would have to pass the test before a license would be issued. She did not think the provision in the legislation would be harmful, but noted that it could be taken out if there were concerns. JEFF MARTIN, MATSU, testified via teleconference in support of the legislation. He did not know of the licensing requirement until a month after the deadline. He felt confident that everyone in the industry was now aware of the legislation. He began his business in April 2001, but has been tattooing for 15 years. ANDY KOPLEZENSKI, MATSU testified via teleconference in support. He has been in the industry for 20 years. Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 443 (L&C) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 443 (L&C) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal note: #1 (DEC).