HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE April 14, 1999 3:26 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative John Harris Representative Tom Brice Representative Sharon Cissna MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 158 "An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal insurance." - MOVED CSHB 158(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C) "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers, manicurists, and cosmetologists; providing that the only qualification necessary for licensure as a manicurist, other than payment of fees, is completion of a class that is 12 hours in duration, addresses relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns, and is offered through a school approved by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE * SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 126 "An Act relating to sign language interpreters; establishing the Alaska State Board of American Sign Language Interpreters; and providing for an effective date." - BILL CANCELLED (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 158 SHORT TITLE: NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/24/99 556 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/24/99 556 (H) L&C, JUD 4/07/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/07/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 4/09/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 4/09/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/09/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 4/12/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 4/14/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: SB 51 SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/01/99 126 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/01/99 126 (S) L&C, FIN 2/16/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 2/16/99 (S) MOVED CS (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 2/18/99 285 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE 2/18/99 285 (S) NR: MACKIE, DONLEY, HOFFMAN; 2/18/99 285 (S) DP: TIM KELLY 2/18/99 286 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB AND CS (DEC, DCED) 3/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/16/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 3/17/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/17/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD 3/17/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 3/17/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 3/26/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/26/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 3/26/99 699 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR 1AM (L&C) CS 3/26/99 699 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS, 3/26/99 699 (S) ADAMS, 3/26/99 699 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN; NR: DONLEY; AM: GREEN 3/26/99 699 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DEC) 3/29/99 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/29/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/31/99 750 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/31/99 3/31/99 753 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 3/31/99 753 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 3/31/99 753 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN 3/31/99 753 (S) CONSENT 3/31/99 754 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 51(L&C) 3/31/99 754 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2 3/31/99 754 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 3/31/99 756 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/07/99 666 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/07/99 666 (H) L&C, FIN 4/14/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4968 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in the proposed Version H committee substitute for HB 158 as aide to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company 124 West Fifth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-5912 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed Version H committee substitute and amendments for HB 158. JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director Division of Insurance Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110805 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805 Telephone: (907) 465-2560 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed Version H committee substitute and amendments for HB 158. JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for the National Association of Independent Insurers; Lobbyist for the American Council of Life Insurance 3328 Fritz Cove Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-0172 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 158. DOUG SALIK, Researcher for Senator Tim Kelly Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4823 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 51(L&C) as aide to the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. CATHERINE REARDON, Director Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110806 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806 Telephone: (907) 465-2536 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 51(L&C). ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-39, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:26 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro, Sanders, Harris and Brice. Representatives Cissna and Murkowski arrived at 3:29 p.m. and 3:54 p.m., respectively. HB 158 - NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY Number 0065 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business is HB 158, "An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal insurance." The chairman requested staff to explain the changes in the proposed Version H committee substitute (CS). Number 0083 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 158, Version H, as a working document. Version H is labeled 1-LS0128\H, Ford, 4/13/99. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. Number 0102 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain the changes in Version H as aide to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Version H incorporates the amendment that was adopted at the previous hearing [April 9, 1999]. It can be found on page 2, lines 11 to 13, of the proposed CS, regarding sold or terminated and proprietary information. This language appears as Section 1, subsection (7) of Version H: (7) statistical information regarding health insurance, including the number of individual and group policies sold or terminated in the state; this paragraph does not authorize the director to require an insurer to release proprietary information; and MS. SEITZ noted "less than 70 years of age" on page 2, line 19, is new. She indicated that all of subsection (2) of Section 2, beginning on page 2, line 27, through the end of the bill, is new language. It sets out that a written notice of cancellation can be mailed to the named insured and to a designee, if the insured has requested that a designee also receive a copy of the (indisc.) notice. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed from Ms. Seitz that was for all three notices. He indicated, then, the insured would designate the third party to receive notice, but the insured would receive notice as well, so there would be two sets of notices sent. MS. SEITZ answered in the affirmative. She noted the mailing schedule has been changed from the 60 days in the original bill back to the existing 30-day, 20-day, and 10-day mailing schedule. Number 0242 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked the reason for raising the age from 67 to 70. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated it was an issue of driving records. There were statistics regarding ages of registered drivers from the Department of Motor Vehicles and some information on the estimated prevalence of ADRD [Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders] related to age groups from the Commission on Aging in the bill packet. The chairman indicated a slight raise in age would reduce the number of people involved and that the biggest incident of ADRD-type manifestations appear after age 70, getting progressively worse. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned if these were statewide figures. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative, noting the chart in the bill packet was provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles. He commented page 4 of the chart shows there are 403,304 automobile passenger car licenses and only some 16,000 [16,803] licensees are over age 70. The chairman indicated this, combined with the medical evidence regarding ADRD-type diseases, was the reason for the age change. The chairman invited Mr. Lessmeier [lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company] forward. Noting there was another issue, the chairman commented he has been working with the industry on this issue. One of the major concerns he has been trying to address is the return receipt requested. This provision has been removed from the bill by adding the additional notification to a third party. Chairman Rokeberg drew the committee's attention to the possible H.1 amendment, which he designated as Amendment 1. Amendment 1, labeled 1-LS0128\H.1, Ford, 4/14/99, read: Page 3, line 6, following "cancellation": Insert "; an insurer who provides a personal insurance policy to an insured who is 70 years of age or older shall give written notice to the insured of the insured's right to have a designee receive notice as provided in this paragraph" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained the amendment mandates that the insurer tell people they have the ability to designate a third party. The chairman asked Mr. Lessmeier if it was his interpretation of Version H that there would be two notices sent on the 30, 20[, 10] mailing schedule, if the insured selects the designee option. Number 0532 MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm), answered that was correct. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned how this compared regarding cost to the certified mail standpoint. MR. LESSMEIER replied that this was proposed as a way of meeting the chairman's concerns to give meaningful notice to the insured and, if the insured is not someone who can receive meaningful notice, giving notice to someone else. This is what State Farm thinks would be the most effective way to accomplish this in terms of giving that notice, as well as the most efficient way for them to do so. He noted it would be the easiest and have the least impact from an expense viewpoint. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed his concern is that this is three additional pieces of first class postage, plus accompanying forms, versus one return receipt request cost element. He asked Mr. Lessmeier to explain why the industry would prefer the first method. Number 0629 MR. LESSMEIER responded their first concern is of effectiveness. If the intent is to ensure that the person receiving the notice actually understands it, in their view it would not be more effective to send more mailings to the same person. Their belief is that it would be better to provide the option for the insured to designate another responsible person. The second concern is that if they make it "on request," it is being done for those people who recognize they need this. It is being done in a specific situation and no one's resources are being wasted. Thirdly, under AS 21.36.260 they are still required to provide a certificate of mailing from the post office in order for the notice to be effective; therefore, they think they will have given meaningful and effective notice to two parties. Under that circumstance, they cannot see what would be gained by going the additional step of requiring return receipt requested, which would impose a cost that this would not. Mr. Lessmeier noted he could not estimate that cost, but indicated he felt the cost would be imposed for something that probably would not be of much benefit. Mr. Lessmeier indicated there was a proposed amendment to Version H which would require certified return receipt mailing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Lessmeier's calculation was based on the probability factor that a majority of people over 70 would not want a designee. MR. LESSMEIER answered that he had not done any calculations. He indicated he doesn't know how many people would choose the designee option; the issue is what would be gained as a result of sending certified return receipt requested. If two mailings are being done to begin with, State Farm's view is that that is effective notice and little, if anything, would be gained by requiring certified return receipt requested, which would have an attached cost. Number 0779 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee has Amendment 1 before it, mandating that the insurance industry inform people of their right to make the designation. He asked if Mr. Lessmeier had any objections. MR. LESSMEIER answered he did not, but he would like to "run this by our folks." Mr. Lessmeier recognized it was the chairman's desire to move the legislation and he indicated they would just continue to work on the bill as it proceeded. The issue is whether it would be the desire to have the industry, for example, include this information in the mailing at the time of every premium renewal so that it is done semi-annually. He does not think this would be a problem but he would like to confirm that. Mr. Lessmeier expressed his support for notifying people, if this option is made available, to ensure the option's effectiveness. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that this is a mandate for the insurance industry to notify [insureds of the designee option]; it does not mandate a periodic notice or anything like that. The chairman confirmed Mr. Lessmeier would not like to see some periodic mandate to assist the company in doing this. The chairman questioned if the notice would be something placed in the policy boilerplate or an endorsement. MR. LESSMEIER commented they would probably just put a mailer in the premium statement. Number 0883 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO gave the example that he turns 70, receives his renewal policy in the mail with the notice and pays his bill. He asked if this meant the information had to be included in every renewal notice he was sent now that he is 70, or if one notification would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he was wondering if that should be a mandate requirement on an annual renewal. MR. LESSMEIER said he would not think it would be a problem to do this on an annual basis. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked about those customers who paid monthly or quarterly. MR. LESSMEIER noted he would want to check with their technical people in this area, but he still does not think it would be a problem to do this perhaps once a year. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented they could probably amend the amendment by specifying language to the effect of "annual notice" or "annually notice". He indicated this would avoid mandating this information to be sent every time for a shorter periodic renewal. The chairman invited Mr. Ference forward. Number 0987 JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Mr. Ference has seen Version H and Amendment 1. The chairman asked Mr. Ference for his comments and how he thought the industry would react. MR. FERENCE did not foresee any problems and had no recommendations other than ensuring that if there were to be a requirement for return receipt, it be clearly specified. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted return receipt was currently not being discussed. The chairman referred to the actual notice and the period notification [of the designee option]. MR. FERENCE commented he did not see any problem at all. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if there were any requirements in other areas of the insurance law that mandate occasional informational notification to insureds. MR. FERENCE answered there are similar requirements for periodic notice in different circumstances. For example, the division deals with Civil Rule 82. The division requires that liability policy holders be advised of their obligations or risks relative to Civil Rule 82. In response to the chairman's comment, Mr. Ference said that is every time a policy is issued. Number 1087 MR. LESSMEIER noted there is a similar requirement for offers of uninsured and under-insured motorist coverage on automobile policies. He believes these [notices] need to be made every six months or at the time of renewal. MR. FERENCE said it is when the policy is issued. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the existence of policies of varying periods, with the customer selecting the period. He asked what then constitutes a renewal. MR. LESSMEIER recommended not going more than annual, because this will apply to both automobile and homeowners' insurance. Most of time, in his experience, homeowners' insurance is an annual premium. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, then, the issue is whether the committee wishes to mandate "on renewal" or "annually". The chairman noted Mr. Lessmeier's testimony that he prefers "annually" over "renewal". Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Ference if he had a recommendation to the committee regarding this type of notification. MR. FERENCE answered he believes annual notice would be sufficient; if he were to recommend anything, he would recommend annual notice. Mr. Ference informed the committee there is a provision in this section of Chapter 36 dealing with cancellation notices that says a policy period is a 12-month period, cycling from the anniversary date. Number 1178 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted a letter of opposition in the bill packet mentioned that homeowners' policies make no reference to the age of the insured because that is irrelevant [Alliance of American Insurers, 4/7/99]. He asked how they would track someone's age regarding homeowners' policies if that information is not gathered at the time of initial application. MR. LESSMEIER replied he thinks this information is gathered at the time of initial application, although he is not 100 percent sure. Mr. Lessmeier said he thinks the easiest way to do this would be to send a notice to all insureds on an annual basis which says, "'If you're over 70 years of age, you have the right to make this request.'" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated this would be appreciated as a matter of public education. The chairman confirmed there were no further questions for Mr. Lessmeier or Mr. Ference. He asked if Mr. George wished to comment. Number 1259 JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII); Lobbyist for the American Council of Life Insurance, concurred on behalf of NAII that annual [notice] would be sufficient. He indicated he supported the idea of notifying all insureds regarding this option. Number 1292 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved Amendment 1 to the proposed Version H CS for HB 158. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for discussion. He commented he would entertain an amendment for annualizing the notice. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to amend Amendment 1 by inserting "annual" after "give" on line 3 of Amendment 1 ["give" appeared line 3 of written amendment]. There being no objection, the amendment to the amendment was adopted. Amendment 1 as amended read: Page 3, line 6, following "cancellation": Insert "; an insurer who provides a personal insurance policy to an insured who is 70 years of age or older shall give annual written notice to the insured of the insured's right to have a designee receive notice as provided in this paragraph" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 as amended was adopted. Number 1358 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the other portion of the bill regarding statistical information. He asked Mr. Ference if he (the chairman) had previously asked him about the language, "this paragraph does not authorize the director to require an insurer to release proprietary information; and". MR. FERENCE confirmed the chairman had previously asked him about that language. The division's recommendation would be that that provision dealing with proprietary information not be existent. However, the division does not believe it will be a significant problem if it remains. If it is not there, however, it prevents this from ever being a question. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that if the division did not receive the requested information if this legislation passed, it could always be amended. The chairman questioned if the division feels this would allow the collection of the desired information in terms of "uninsured individual and group plans that are non-ERISA." MR. FERENCE replied he thought this was broad enough. It will allow the division to identify who is insured and, by default, that will identify who falls outside the scope of insurance treatments. In response to the chairman's comment, Mr. Ference confirmed it would be both for covered bodies and policy numbers. Number 1437 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. George what kinds of information the industry would consider proprietary. MR. GEORGE answered, on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurance, that he is unsure. He indicated he deals more with the life insurance side as opposed to health insurance. He supposes the names of the groups on group policies, those types of things, to avoid giving competitors a list of a company's clients, might be considered proprietary. He didn't see a problem with releasing the actual numbers, noting he thinks that is the information being sought. As long as it doesn't include names of clients or names of insured individuals, Mr. George said he thinks they are probably okay with that. He commented he is speaking off the top of his head. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if pricing structures, et cetera, would be considered proprietary. MR. GEORGE replied it would be, but he doesn't think that is the type of information being requested. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "That's published information (indisc.) premium tax (indisc.)?" MR. FERENCE responded in health insurance policies it is not, only for Blue Cross and Blue Shield. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented he doesn't want there to be a future debate over what is proprietary and what is not, noting that is the reason for his questions. MR. GEORGE indicated he does not think there is a problem with the information this legislation is seeking to get. He further indicated this section could be used in the future to gather other information, at which point the industry could say that is proprietary. Number 1548 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated his view of this amendment [adopted April 9, 1999] is that it was a fence around which the fishing expedition of the division would be restricted. The chairman indicated the intention was that the division collect this specific information, not have untrammeled rights to obtain information. MR. FERENCE agreed with the chairman's comments. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, regarding the statistical health insurance information, if that would be the specific services which are covered, like the level of copayment and the deductibles. He asked if that would include, for example, whether or not the policy has mental health coverage as well. MR. GEORGE said he assumes Representative Brice is interested in finding out who is treating mental health coverage with parity and who is not, referring to the mental health parity legislation. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated he was interested in simply who is providing that coverage. MR. GEORGE said it is probably not proprietary if it is being examined generically and statistics are desired. A particular company might have problems sharing its information publicly. Number 1645 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned if that is something the department can work on. MR. FERENCE answered he doesn't see a reason why they couldn't. Statistical information, in a sense, is very broad; it is anything that can be counted. It could be extended to count different policies on (indisc.) basis, if the division chose to do that. However, the reality is the division is not interested in "fishing" either because of the time and expense. He indicated the more detailed the examination, the more probability the division would run into proprietary problems and objections from industry over the cost to provide the information. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted, on the balance of that, he is glad to see this section is being included, because, as policy makers, the legislature needs to have some understanding of the real world impacts of various mandates or various disparities amongst coverages. MR. GEORGE commented that people covered under ERISA [Employee Retirement and Security Act] will not be captured by this, indicating that is the major section. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said they want to know the other people. He indicated he doesn't know why this doesn't say non-ERISA. Number 1713 MR. FERENCE pointed out he doesn't see why there is any reason the division, under this legislation, could not ask insurers to identify stop-loss policies that are sold to protect ERISA plans and solicit statistics on the number of participants protected under those stop-loss programs. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it would be his intention that the division obtain that information also. He commented the Department of Health and Social Services is also always looking for the numbers of insureds. The chairman confirmed Mr. Walsh [John Walsh, lobbyist for the Alaska Association of Independent Agents and Brokers] did not wish to testify. The chairman closed the public testimony on HB 158 after confirming no one else wished to testify. The chairman noted he would not be offering the other amendment [labeled 1-LS0128\H.2, Ford, 4/14/99, adding certified mail requirements]. Number 1797 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CS for HB 158 [Version H], as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 158(L&C) moved out the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 1817 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 3:58 p.m. The committee came back to order at 3:59 p.m. CSSB 51(L&C) - LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS Number 1821 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business is CSSB 51(L&C), "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers, manicurists, and cosmetologists; providing that the only qualification necessary for licensure as a manicurist, other than payment of fees, is completion of a class that is 12 hours in duration, addresses relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns, and is offered through a school approved by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date." Number 1827 DOUG SALIK, Researcher for Senator Tim Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present SB 51 as aide to the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. Mr. Salik commented the legislation's length might appear intimidating, but it comes mainly from changing the current statute's "cosmetology" to "esthestics", or "cosmetologist" to "esthetician". This change has been made primarily to clarify the language according to other states; other states use the terms "esthetician" or "esthetics". Mr. Salik indicated the legislation would replace the references to "cosmetology", "cosmetologist", and "skin care only" with "esthetics" and "esthetician". It would also create a manicurist's license and define the required training for this license to a 12-hour class covering health, safety and hygiene. This class is not in current statute. In addition, a temporary permit would be created for persons who have applied for a license and have practiced their profession in another state. Mr. Salik indicated this would allow people to come to Alaska and continue practicing while awaiting Alaska licensing. The legislation also creates a new instructor's license that covers practitioners as well as instructors. Therefore, if someone is an instructor, she/he can hold a dual license which allows the person to both practice and instruct in the skill. Lastly, the legislation removes the shaving requirement from statute since it is neither taught nor tested. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if her questions concerning the examinations should be addressed to Mr. Salik or to Ms. Reardon [Director, Division of Occupational Licensing]. MR. SALIK indicated he could attempt to answer her questions. Number 1935 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI understands manicurists would take a course of not more than 12 hours, and the legislation specifically says a person does not have to take or pass an examination. She questioned, then, if it is basically an informational course. MR. SALIK replied that is correct. He indicated there are currently no statutory requirements for manicurists. The state has not received such a volume of complaints that it believes full licensure is necessary. Mr. Salik noted a lot of other states require 600 or 800 hours of classes, training, internships, et cetera. It is felt this might be somewhat severe, especially for locations like Sitka or Ketchikan where the person in current practice would have to close her/his shop to attend a $5,000 to $6,000 eight-week course in Anchorage. Mr. Salik indicated the cost of such a course would be approximate to that of a student loan. He noted the class required by SB 51 is basically intended to eliminate known problems such as use of dental cleaners. The dental chemicals cost about $2 per gallon, Mr. Salik thought, as opposed to a significantly higher cost for the correct ones. However, the dental chemicals actually "eat away at your skin and things." Mr. Salik indicated the concept of the 12-hour class is that it could be taken in a weekend to avoid harm to a practitioner's business, and would cover basic safety issues and the possible concerns of the profession. Mr. Salik commented that, for example, this is to instruct someone to avoid shaving down to the point at which blood is drawn, and what should be done in case there is blood or something along those lines. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the legislation states that the board will issue a license if a person submits documentation that she/he has completed the course. Describing the example of someone coming to Anchorage from Sitka for this course, signing in and then leaving, Representative Murkowski asked what assurance she would have that her manicurist has actually sat through 12 hours of instruction. She questioned if there is a certificate of completion or similar. Number 2046 MR. SALIK answered that is correct. The intent of SB 51 is to still maintain the direct oversight of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers on the schools to ensure the schools will be taking care of that. In turn, the schools would provide that to the Division of Occupational Licensing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Reardon should join the committee at the table and contribute where she feels necessary. Number 2082 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), came forward. She anticipates the department would be looking for a certificate of completion - some evidence of graduation. Her reading of the legislation is that the board itself would not be conducting examinations. Acknowledging Representative Murkowski's legal background, Ms. Reardon referred to new language on page 2, beginning on line 26, "The board may not require an applicant for licensure as a manicurist to take or pass an examination for the field of manicuring.". Ms. Reardon indicated she thinks this would still allow the schools to give an examination before completion of the course is awarded. There is no examination available for purchase to offer to a person who has completed the 12-hour course. The national examinations available for purchase are for people who have taken eight-week, three-month type courses. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to language on page 5, beginning line 23 ["24"], "The board may not issue a license to a school of manicuring if the school requires its students to complete more than 12 hours of instruction or training before the school will certify that the student has completed the school's manicuring course for purposes of AS 08.13.080(b).". She questioned how this new language fits with a beauty school eligible to receive [Alaska] student loan monies, or if it fits: If a beauty school offers a manicure course longer than 12 hours to its students, would its ability to receive student loan monies possibly be jeopardized? Representative Murkowski noted she is wondering if there is a tie-in with student loan monies. Number 2172 MS. REARDON answered that she needed to check with "student loan" [Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE)] to see what the rules are regarding school eligibility. She noted it is conceivable the commission would require a beauty school to be licensed through the Division of Occupational Licensing. Ms. Reardon commented Representative Murkowski is the first person to ask this question. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she would be interested to know because she sits on the ACPE and is aware there are beauty schools for which students can receive Alaska Student Loans. Her concern is that this legislation not go against the commission's requirements for school eligibility. MS. REARDON explained the reason for the language on page 5 is to encourage schools to create these 12-hour courses. She noted the legislation's success depends on schools responding to the demand for these 12-hour courses. Ms. Reardon expressed her frank concern that the few beauty schools in Alaska might respond by saying they only offer the three-month course; if this happened, there would be no place for people to receive the 12-hour course. Ms. Reardon said there is not a lot of competition in beauty schools outside of Anchorage. She commented, "I think the sponsor was probably responding to some of my concerns that way by trying to give further impetus to say that if you're going to do it, you have to offer the 12-hour course because that's all the state is willing to mandate that people take at this point." Ms. Reardon noted she would definitely look into the postsecondary angle in order to provide a better answer. Number 2251 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to a one-page copy of an informational flyer in the bill packet on Cimarron Tech Nail Artist School. He noted it shows a cost of $3,350 for a 180-hour curriculum and displays prominently on the bottom of the flyer that Alaska Student Loans are available. He noted six weeks seemed like an awful long time. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out all the things the students are taught. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "This looks like it could be, I hate (indisc.), (indisc.) in terms of education here." He questioned if Mr. Salik had any further testimony "on the Senate Committee" regarding these types of educational programs (indisc.) being offered in the state. MR. SALIK indicated the legislation's intent is to not jeopardize the business of a nail technician who might own and run a salon in a small community by requiring the person to leave for six weeks to complete a course in a profession she/he has already been practicing for a significant period of time. He noted the intent is that that person probably already knows what she/he is doing, but should have a refresher [course] on the possible dangers. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee had received testimony from any of the schools currently providing this curriculum. Number 2327 MR. SALIK answered in the negative, stating, "No ... I had only spoken with them personally and I had tried to ask them to testify, but they said that they'd prefer not, that they were okay with it. ... They were not happy that it was 12 hours but they thought it was a step in the right direction. They still wanted to be able to provide a further, longer course ... to anyone who'd prefer to specialize (indisc.) such." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there was nothing in the legislation that an advanced certificate of manicuring could still be provided, but it just couldn't be mandated by the student loan. He indicated he wondered if that was what the provision in the language referenced by Representative Murkowski meant. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI clarified that language is on page 5. She reviewed the wording, "may not issue a license ... if the school requires". REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated, then, a person could still go to the nail artist school for an advanced degree. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, however, the person could not get a student loan for it. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed, and commented that the nail artist school would not be licensed. Number 2375 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented to Ms. Reardon that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers would license the schools; therefore, they would have to go through the licensing procedure in place now. MS. REARDON indicated the board licenses all the schools covering the disciplines - barber schools, hairdresser schools, and skin-care cosmetology/esthetics school - and the board would also be certifying the licensing of schools offering the manicure course. She would anticipate that it is often the same school offering the entire range of disciplines. The school would receive one school license which indicates what subjects can be taught, depending on the qualifying documentation provided to the division. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the legislation looks like more of a bill intended to cut down abuse of the student loan program than anything else. He questioned if this assumption is correct, commenting he has not read the entire bill. Number 2463 MS. REARDON answered she does not think that that was behind this, explaining that most student loans for beauty professions are used primarily for hairdressing, and nothing is being changed regarding how schools of hairdressing operate. Ms. Reardon stated, "The things that you have directed your attention to in this conversation regarding the limits on schools were designed to try to create 12-hour courses that people could take - to try not to have onerous regulation coming down on existing small businesses or..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 99-39, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. REARDON continued, "...(indisc.) schools from not getting - being student loan-eligible anymore, that hadn't - actually, we hadn't thought about the whole topic. But perhaps on page 5, I don't know how the sponsor feels about it, but we could [have] said something more like, 'The board will not issue a license to a school of manicuring unless the school offers a manicure course ... of 12 hours of instruction.' Something like that might work because as long as they offer a 12-hour course they can also offer a 260-hour course or something." The concern Ms. Reardon has, and perhaps this was reflected in some of the sponsor's decision, is that if some pressure is not put on [schools] to create the 12-hour course, everyone will respond by only creating the 360-hour or 180-hour courses. Then, every manicurist in the state would have to take one of those longer courses. Ms. Reardon does see why a school want to offer a comprehensive course like the one described in the bill packet; there is no harm in having a more complete education. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned Mr. Salik if there had been any testimony from "postsecondary education" on this legislation. MR. SALIK answered in the negative. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, his suspicions are not necessarily confirmed in terms of the student loan program. MR. SALIK indicated he believes some of the manicurists' curriculum is covered during the barber/hairdressing program. He noted this simply might be a further refresher. Most current barbers or hairdressers already have a basic understanding of manicuring and have performed some manicures. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged Representative Brice's question, commenting, "Before we beat this thing to death here for a minute, but maybe we'll go back to it ...." Number 0083 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks they still need to beat a little bit more. He asked what the basis was for the 12 hours. In response to Mr. Salik's comment, Representative Brice said he understands why, but questioned how. MR. SALIK indicated the number of hours was set with the intention that it be small enough to allow someone from a more remote location to travel to Anchorage and complete the course over a weekend, rather than having to close her/his shop for an extended period of time. Mr. Salik further indicated other states require between six to eight weeks, or similar. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted 20 hours is more than 12 hours but not six weeks. He understands there has to be a certain level of arbitrary decision; he is just wondering if 12 hours is enough. He has heard testimony that there are some pretty invasive techniques performed, referring to Mr. Salik's earlier comment about drilling and drawing blood. Representative Brice noted fairly sharp implements being stuck up through a person's cuticle; he pointed out that is a question. However, Representative Brice said he also would like to clarify a statement made by Ms. Reardon. He indicated he thought he had understood Representative Murkowski's comments until Ms. Reardon spoke. Representative Brice referred to language on page 2 being added to current statute, "The board may not require an applicant for licensure as a manicurist to take or pass an examination for the field of manicuring." He believes it was Ms. Reardon's testimony that this would not bar a school from giving a test before a person receives her/his certificate of completion. However, Representative Brice indicates he thinks this would not allow a test to be required at all. He described the scenario of someone taking the 12-hour course and using this language to inform the school it expressly is not allowed to require a test before giving out the certificate of completion. Number 0192 MS. REARDON indicated she feels pretty comfortable saying the intent of this language was to refer to back to the earlier sentences of that section relating to the duties and functions of the board regarding meetings and examinations. She indicated the language Representative Brice referenced may not clearly reflect this intent. If the committee is of the mind to "fine-tune" the legislation through a committee substitute already, Ms. Reardon thought the department would not have any problem with clarifying that point: the board may not require a board examination but schools may require examinations of their choice. She explained the department does not want to offer a board examination because it would have to write the examination and conduct it. MR. SALIK said that was correct. The intent was not to require the board to test, but the schools might require anything they would like including a practical test. It would be the school's requirement, not the board's, not the state's. MS. REARDON noted perhaps additional wording regarding the 12-hour limit on instruction - to the effect that the person has to have successfully completed the 12 hours - would make the committee more comfortable. She indicated this would provide some flexibility and commented these are improvements to the legislation. Number 0280 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated his preference would be to mandate some type of examination, even if it was a practicum, so that the school would have record that an individual actually took an exam in case the person was audited for her/his conduct. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated his agreement and a bit of remaining concern with the 12-hour issue. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Salik, regarding the 12-hour course, if there had been any testimony regarding the curriculum [necessary] to train a manicurist. MR. SALIK answered it was the intent to allow the board to define the curriculum. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the issue is whether 12 hours is enough time. MR. SALIK indicated it was felt the definition of "health, safety and hygiene" was of the proper breadth to allow the board to determine the curriculum which would need to be covered. Number 0359 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned if there is an upper reasonable limit of what could conveniently fit into a weekend if the intent is avoid business disruption for those who would need to travel to participate. She noted she could see the situation where the board would select more items than would be effective to put into 12 hours, commenting that "to lock it onto that" does seem to arbitrary. She asked if 12 hours was it. MS. REARDON replied that, certainly, there was some arbitrariness to 12 hours. She wanted to put an upper limit so that it wouldn't be a huge number of hours and the sponsor cooperated. Ms. Reardon is just not aware of very much research on this profession. She would recommend against being specific in statute about the curriculum, above and beyond the fact that it is health and safety the state is concerned with. Her reasoning for this is that she suspects there will be a lot more public comment from schools during the regulation writing process. She said the schools are pretty active interacting with the board about curriculum and similar items. Ms. Reardon suspects the advent of acrylic nails, with the possibilities of infection and other similar issues, has been the impetus for licensing like this. If the curriculum is set in statute, the statute might need to be revised in a couple of years as different kinds of nails and products come out. Ms. Reardon expressed her lack of knowledge about nail issues, noting perhaps that is why she hesitates to put anything in the law regarding the curriculum. Number 0500 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained he brings the issue up because he carried a bill dealing with the subject a few years previously. That legislation spoke of 300 hours; Representative Brice noted he had to fight to get it down to 300 hours. He discussed that former-Representative Cynthia Toohey had been a member of the legislature at that time. She had her nails done and, as a nurse, had treated diabetics who had to have manicures [pedicures] because of the high risk of infection in the feet. Representative Brice indicated former-Representative Toohey had been familiar with the "more precarious" techniques associated with the profession. This is where Representative Brice's concern comes from. Additionally, as he recalls, few states offered less than 150 hours at that time. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned that beauty schools currently touch on manicuring. The schools have this comprehensive program teaching a person to cut hair, do nails and do some skin treatments. He asked if this would mandate that these schools dedicate a minimum of 12 hours, or if this would mandate that the schools provide a whole different course. Representative Halcro asked if the schools would still be able to incorporate manicuring into their current curriculum. MS. REARDON explained SB 51 sets requirements for a manicurist's license. Currently, some manicurist training is being provided to people getting hairdressers' licenses. She would think the schools could require whatever manicure training they wished for the hairdresser's license. Through regulation, the board has required a certain amount of manicuring for a hairdresser's license. This statute gives the board a lot of leeway - the board sets the hour amount and the entire curriculum for barbering and hairdressing; the statute contains very little specific detail about how the state will license that. Ms. Reardon believes the board requires 1600 hours of training and a certain amount of different procedures. She doesn't think manicuring is required of barbers but is required of hairdressers. The required amount of manicuring for hairdressers should appear in the regulations. Ms. Reardon stated, "I would think that they could continue to do that, both to meet the board 'regs' or to exceed the board 'regs,' if they chose to - for hairdressers, just not for manicurists' licenses." Number 0641 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG drew Ms. Reardon's and the committee's attention to a March 25, 1999, letter or fax in the bill packet sent to the Senate from Rosalyn Wyche, a member of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. He indicated the communication said the board agreed with SB 51 except for the amount of hours manicurists should receive and that they should be tested. The communication recommends 300 hours and following the Milady textbook. The chairman questioned Ms. Reardon about this. MS. REARDON explained Ms. Wyche and another board member had missed the last board meeting due to weather conditions. Indicating an attempt to teleconference has not been successful, Ms. Reardon said she believes Ms. Wyche based her letter on positions the board had taken in previous meetings or years. However, at the March 22, 1999, meeting the board did discuss this very topic of hours and Ms. Reardon observed it appeared the board felt getting licensing this way is a good start and could be adjusted in future years. Referring to the minutes of that board meeting, Ms. Reardon noted a motion had been carried unanimously by the three members present expressing the board's approval or support for the CS for SB 51, as presented in Version G, the current version [CSSB 51(L&C)]. MR. SALIK indicated the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, he believes, requested each board member be faxed regarding this legislation. The responses are included in the bill packet; Ms. Wyche's response [received 3/11/99] shows she was in support of the legislation and had chosen not to provide further comments. Mr. Salik commented he had spoken with Ms. Wyche after the legislation passed the Senate; she was glad it had come this far and had expressed the board was excited that at least they had something in the right direction. Mr. Salik said the board is not sure how far to go in that direction either. He compared this to how the 12 hours was arrived at. Mr. Salik noted Ms. Wyche said she personally believes more hours would be a better thing, but yet the board agreed that 12 hours was a good step in the right direction. Number 0799 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how the issue of "grandfathering" was being handled. He asked for confirmation that the practice of manicuring by a hairdresser who has gone through a class requiring 250 to 300 hours of manicurist training would not be disallowed by this legislation because the person hasn't taken the 12-hour course. MR. SALIK replied he believes this version does not grandfather people in; these people would be asked to take the 12-hour course, which would, at the very least, be a refresher for some. He indicated he had done some research regarding other states and the required hours vary greatly. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the state of Alaska requires 15 practical [manicure] operations for a hairdresser's license and 180 wet hair stylings and dryings. The chairman commented the regulation reference is 12 AAC 09.160[(12)]. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered whether or not people with the hairdressing license should receive some type of grandfathering and not be required to go through the 12-hour class. Number 0910 MS. REARDON clarified Representative Brice meant grandfathering in currently-licensed hairdressers to receive manicurists' licenses, not that hairdressers would be allowed to practice manicuring without a separate manicurist's license. She noted the second option would cover both existing and future hairdressers; Ms. Reardon said it is just another option for dealing with that. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the question arises that if to receive a hairdressing license, a person has to go through a higher standard of education and training. He thinks it only stands to reason that that license should give a person the right to practice manicuring on its own. MS. REARDON said she doesn't think the bill does that at this time, however. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 20, on page 8. [Section 20 read: * Sec. 20. AS 08.13.190 is amended to read: Sec. 08.13.190. Failure to possess a license or permit. A person who practices barbering, hairdressing, manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], or operates a shop, or operates a school of barbering, hairdressing, manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], or teaches in a school of barbering, hairdressing, manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], without a license, temporary permit, temporary license, or student permit and who is not exempt under AS 08.13.120 or under AS 08.13.160(d) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.] REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted this is the penalty for failure to possess a license or permit. She would bring this up in the House Judiciary Standing Committee if this legislation had that referral: she thinks there is a great difference between someone teaching or operating a school without a license and this group of manicurists who would only have to take this 12-hour health and safety course without an examination. However, these manicurists would still be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor if they fail to take this course and get their licenses. Representative Murkowski commented this does not equate. She recommended the examination of this and removal or reduction of the penalties for at least the manicurists. Number 1025 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted all occupational licensing infractions are subject to Class B misdemeanors; it is a universal penalty. He questioned Ms. Reardon regarding the last occasion someone in Alaska was charged with a criminal misdemeanor for being out of violation with his/her license. MS. REARDON answered that it has not occurred in their memory. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if it is correct that all occupational licensing infractions are generally subject to the Class B misdemeanor. MS. REARDON answered there are a few that might be Class A misdemeanors. Mobile home dealers, unusually enough, might be subject to Class A misdemeanors. Ms. Reardon added, "And also in some philological reasons in some of the professions like medical. If you practice without a doctor's license, I think it can work its way up to maybe even a lower felony or something." She indicated, however, the general penalty for occupational licensing infractions is a Class B misdemeanor but there are quite practical difficulties with applying that because the district attorney's office and the police are pursuing many types of crimes. Therefore, the division likes to have some penalty in statute to encourage compliance with licensing even though it may never be enforced. The penalty could be a different level, but Ms. Reardon feels there does need to be some penalty. She referred to unsuccessful legislation introduced several years previously by Representative Jeannette James which would have given boards the ability to assess fines for unlicensed activity; that legislation was unsuccessful for an unrelated reason. Currently, boards have no statutory authority over non-licensees. It is left to the criminal justice system to punish people, but it is not happening. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted unless a person is on real estate commission. MS. REARDON indicated this was due to the chairman's previous legislation [the previous session's HB 33]. Number 1118 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would not have a problem with it if the manicurist license actually meant something. However, at this point no examination is required; the person simply has to check in and pay her/his fees. Representative Murkowski expressed that putting these people in the same class as a beauty school teacher or operator does not make sense. MS. REARDON commented there are other professions Representative Murkowski would probably feel the same way about, although her point is not invalid. Ms. Reardon indicated there are some professions that basically only require a fee and signature. She questioned if there were other types of lower penalties that would be a good idea. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted there is a penalty for people practicing without a license; he non-seriously questioned if there is a penalty for those practicing with a license but who are really bad, commenting he has received some really bad haircuts. MS. REARDON stated there is a very good point underlying that and probably not one this legislation wishes to address: there is not the authority, if this bill passes, for the state to remove hairdressers', barbers', manicurists', or estheticians' licenses for incompetence. The statute states the board can discipline a licensee for violating the chapter but nothing in the chapter says a person has to perform at any specific level. The chapter requires a person to have a license and some other similar requirements. A school might be required to teach certain things and give certain records but nowhere does the statute specifically require safe or competent practice. Therefore, the division cannot cite anything in the chapter as being violated if a person fails practice safely or competently. Ms. Reardon noted she has brought this issue up in other settings. She thinks this is a bigger issue for all of barber and hairdressing; it is not anything they are exacerbating except that it is being expanded to another profession. Ms. Reardon noted the other downside of solving this issue is that if the division had enforcement abilities, it would then want to enforce. This leads to the risk of a fiscal note for realistic reasons. Currently, the division spends no money on enforcement. Ms. Reardon indicated that if a person calls with a complaint regarding a licensee's competence, the division expresses sympathy, but since it has no enforcement ability, it incurs no cost because no time is spent on the complaint. Number 1305 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out this is where the division relies on "the invisible hand and the power of the marketplace to sort out the competent from the incompetent," noting he thinks that basically works. The chairman indicated he wished the transition issue to be addressed. He commented there are a large number of people of Vietnamese background doing manicuring all over the West Coast and in Alaska. These people have been in business for a number of years without licenses or anything. The chairman questioned if these people could receive the temporary licenses until they take the 12-hour course or how that transition would work. He asked what he would have to do if he was currently a manicurist. MS. REARDON indicated all current manicurists would have until the legislation's effective date, September 1, 2001, to receive the 12 hours of training and obtain their licenses. Ms. Reardon expressed her belief that if there is enough risk to public health and safety to merit licensure and 12 hours of health and safety training for this currently unregulated profession, not requiring existing practitioners to take this 12 hours of training would belie the concern about health and safety risk. Number 1438 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it is the chairman's desire to take Representative Sanders' advice and assign this legislation to a very small subcommittee. The chairman indicated this does not reflect negatively on Mr. Salik's efforts and that would be communicated to Senator Tim Kelly. Chairman Rokeberg noted he is concerned about the 12 hours. He indicated he would like also like to receive some feedback from ACPE on how this fits in; the chairman commented they obviously need an amendment in that area just to clarify that and to make an examination is required before someone is certified, with records of that examination, et cetera. Additionally, they need to make sure the transition provisions are acceptable. Chairman Rokeberg indicated it sounds as if they are. He guesses it is this issue regarding the length of hours and how it fits into "postsecondary." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented on the reference on page 5, line 7, to payment of a credential investigation fee for someone entering from another state. She noted the person basically waives into this licensure by proving her/his licensing in the other state. She wondered whether this is the regular licensure fee or if the person pays the license fee plus the credential investigation fee and exactly what this is all about. MS. REARDON indicated she would have to check. Number 1575 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how reciprocity with other states is handled. MR. SALIK indicated the legislation would create a temporary permit for people who are already licensed in another state to allow these people to practice in Alaska while obtaining Alaska licensure. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought the committee would also want to have the discussion about people who have had course work beyond the 12 hours through other licenses. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he thinks that is one of the issues with postsecondary education. He appointed Representative Brice as chair of the subcommittee on SB 51 because of Representative Brice's expertise regarding this legislation. The chairman indicated the two female members of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, Representative Cissna, also of the minority, and Representative Murkowski would serve on the subcommittee. The chairman noted this is not a sexist recommendation; he indicated he thinks "you of the fairer sex" have more expertise in this area than "us dumb guys over here." REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned she has never had her nails done. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that the subcommittee, in conjunction with Mr. Salik and Senator Tim Kelly, expeditiously bring back a slightly revised version so SB 51 could properly be sent to the House floor in a proper way. [CSSB 51(L&C) WAS ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE] ADJOURNMENT Number 1705 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting at 4:51 p.m.