SB 51-LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 51 to be up for consideration SENATOR KELLY said the bill was introduced at the request of the Board of Cosmetologists. The only controversy within the bill appeared to be the licensing of manicurists and what training they require. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that the sponsor of SB 51 was actually the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee. MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, said her staff provides the staff support to the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. She agreed that the primary issue in SB 51 is the licensing of manicurists. Less controversial items include changing the term "cosmetologist" to "aesthetician" throughout the statute; this is why the bill is so long. This is a request of the Board which says that the term "aesthetician" is much more common in other parts of the country to mean skin care which is what cosmetologists are in our statute. Using the term "cosmetologist" has been confusing to people who are coming in from other states, leading them to think that's a hairdresser license and applying for the wrong kind of license. SB 51 has no other impacts on her division or fiscal impacts. The next item is the creation of a temporary license, which is different from a temporary permit. The temporary license allows people to continue to practice between the period that they complete their training and passing the exam. Depending on what town you are in, there could be lag-time before the exam is offered. This provision allows the temporary licensee to operate under the direct supervision of another licensed person and was also proposed by the Board. MS. REARDON said that in the past she has opposed licensing manicurists, but the Board has traditionally supported licensing manicurists. The Board is meeting in March and could comment on the specific bill. Her Division's perspective of SB 51 is that training required for a manicurist's license is carefully restricted in the title and content of the bill, to be very specific that it cannot exceed 12 hours of training and in health, safety, and hygiene. She personally feels that is preferable to previous proposals, because in prior years her concern was that there were a lot of manicurists practicing right now without licensure and potentially there would be a very expensive training regimen set up where people would have to close their shop and go to Anchorage for a couple of months, and spend a couple thousand dollars to get a license. That might have a lot of real negative consequences for small business people. She wasn't sure that the public health and safety risk of incompetent manicuring was sufficient to be worth that problem for business people. Since the bill is directed toward health and safety, primarily concerns about infections resulting from fake nails that are being put on permanently. The Board members tell her that it possible to get infections because the nail is covered for so long. If that is the reason for government involvement in regulation of this profession, it is appropriate that the training focus on the safety issues. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if she supported the bill. MS. REARDON answered that she thought the Department would be neutral on this bill, but she hadn't shown it to the Commissioner for the official position. The Board has not seen this bill, but she anticipates that they would support it. Number 410 SENATOR KELLY asked if there was a section that said if you're an instructor, you no longer have to get each individual certificates and pay a whole new permit fee. MS. REARDON replied that is the fourth aspect of this bill on page 5, line 9 of the draft CS. It says a person licensed as an instructor is considered to be licensed as a practitioner, and, therefore, they don't have to buy both the instructor license and the practitioners license. The Department supports this provision. She added that there would be a fiscal note relating to the licensing of manicurists; however, since the draft says there won't be a state administered examination, that would decrease her last year's fiscal note. She would not collect the $55 fee to hire a proctor to give the exam. SENATOR DONLEY said that some states allow self-testing to avoid the problem of the state offering the test only on certain dates. He asked if the Board has a position on that. MS. REARDON said she didn't know for sure, but would ask them. From the Division perspective, it doesn't seem to be very disturbing. In fact, it might be a good idea. She said a concern might be if the exam givers are giving it to their own students. She said she would find out and noted that taking the exam out of the state's hands would also take out of the State's budget. Number 450 SENATOR KELLY moved to adopt the CS to CSSB 51(L&C). There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR DONLEY asked if there were any concerns about exploring the self testing aspect. SENATOR KELLY said he didn't understand how it would fit in this bill. SENATOR DONLEY explained that offering an exam in the private sector would allow a person to take it right away instead of having to wait two or three months. SENATOR KELLY said he thought that was a different place than where the bill started out. He doubted that anyone would fail the exam; if they would pay the $3,000 - $4,000 to take the course, he thought they would pass the exam whether they showed up or not. SENATOR DONLEY said in a way it related to the intermediate license, since the State only offers the exam at certain times. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said he thought it sounded more efficient to be able to take the test when you are done with the course rather than to have to schedule another trip out of town to take the test. SENATOR KELLY suggested getting an opinion from the Board while the bill moves to Finance. MS. REARDON agreed to poll the Board and let the committee know their position as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that Ms. Janice Adair, Director, Division of Environmental Health, had been available to testify in Anchorage, but had to leave because of illness. MS. REARDON explained that the bill requires the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to inspect a shop when it first opens. When a business changes hands, DEC is no longer able to reinspect. Where municipalities are involved, more frequent health inspections are occurring. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted the DEC fiscal note of $3,800 and which says the Department does not currently inspect facilities covered by this legislation, nor are they proposing to start an inspection program. Regulations are self-implementing and, time permitting, they would respond to complaints. However, they present a relatively low public health risk. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSSB 51(L&C) from committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered.