April 15, 2016

Ms. Rebecca Gaspard 
MN Board of Cosmetologist Examiners
2829 University Avenue SE, #710
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Re: SSPA submitted comments on proposed Minnesota Rule Chapters 2105 and 2110

Dear Ms. Gaspard,

The following items constitute those matters identified by the Salon and Spa Professional Association (SSPA) as being problematic or in need of further clarification specific to the proposed amended rules officially posted by the Minnesota Board of Cosmetologist Examiners (BCE) in the March 28, 2016 issue of the State Register.

Items listed are in order of appearance in the proposed rules document:

2105.0186—Continuing Education Providers, subpart 1 (C):
This section should incorporate the statutory requirement that any professional association offering continuing education must also be organized as a non-profit organization under MS 317A. This clarification should also be included in subpart 2 and subpart 3.

2105.0187—Skills Courses:
The proposed rule should identify or clarify conditions when a skills course is warranted. Perhaps incorporating language that states “A skills course is required in conjunction with testing on theory and practice for individuals who are subject to sections 2105.0145, 2105.0183, and 2110.0705.”

2105.0375—Infection Control Requirements, subpart 11:
Extending disinfection methods to the attached cord of electrical tools is excessive, and requiring some of these methods overall with tools without removable parts after each use will subject practitioners to undue and potentially unsafe levels of repeated chemical exposures every hour.
The proposed infection control requirements in subpart 6 (E) and subpart 15 of this section adequately addresses concerns regarding the disinfection of these electrical tools. However, the additional requirements included in subpart 11 will be burdensome, confusing, if not somewhat conflicting with the “daily” disinfecting requirements for these tools and where they are stored elsewhere in this same section.

2105.0390—Salon Supervision (D):
Mandating time clocks and retaining these records by a salon for “non-employed” practitioners for the convenience of leased operators who only rent space is burdensome to these particular types of salons and suggests that an employer/employee relationship exists. This language should be permissive if the salon chooses to offer this for their contractors seeking hour documentation, and not mandatory. Furthermore, as proposed this would seem to also apply to single operator salons located in private residences.

Repealer—2105.0400 Independent Contractor, subpart 6:
SSPA reiterates its concern in removing this section in its entirety. While the SONAR makes some compelling arguments regarding its complete repeal, we fear it will negatively affect the general public specific to newly licensed individuals who have recently graduated from a cosmetology school. Experience beyond the classroom setting is a necessity before one should be eligible in becoming an independent contractor.
As an alternative to dismissing this rule entirely, we would propose that independent contractors should only be allowed upon renewal of the practitioner’s initial license or upon documenting 2700 hours of experience after receiving their initial license. We would be more comfortable with this clarification in conjunction with the proposed removal of the manager license requirement in these circumstances.

2105.0410—Licensed Services Not Offered in a Licensed Salon, subpart 3 (F):
We strongly disagree with the proposed ban on recognizing work experience hours for homebound permit holders for the following reasons.

(1) A homebound permit holder is required to maintain a valid practitioner license, the same as a person working in a full service salon. In fact, some chain salons offer fewer services than those performed under a homebound permit, yet licensees in these limited service establishments (hair cutting only) are awarded full recognition for their work hours. Homebound permit holders should be granted the same courtesy. Their work experience should not be diminished and invalidated simply because they work with a homebound permit.

(2) Denying hours under this permit would limit future employment opportunities and severely limit career advancement, since they wouldn’t meet the work experience requirement needed to obtain other licenses under this chapter.

(3) It is inconsistent to recognize hours under a special event permit which has limited focus and not that of a homebound permit which can offer all services.

SSPA would like (F) eliminated in its entirety. It is discriminatory and unfair.

With the exception of these concerns raised, SSPA is otherwise supportive of the extensive rule changes as proposed. We applaud the BCE for their diligence in addressing the need to update Minnesota Rule chapters 2105 and 2110. We respectfully request an ALJ hearing to review our comments, unless the BCE is amenable to modifying the proposed rules to reflect our concerns.