[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6072534,"mediaKeyId","3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0","parentId",3020388,"title","Board hears cosmetology compact presentation; after questions it votes to oppose AB371","audioSeconds",8288,"startMs",3593000,"endMs",11881000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0&start=3593&end=11881","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0/thumbnail_3593000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6072534/Nevada/Board-hears-cosmetology-compact-presentation-after-questions-it-votes-to-oppose-AB371","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6072534-d102f07d1bf32c327325227a1e81e815/orig.mp4?Expires=1770805706&Signature=EVgZxDUk--XEkzfcVnTFoA0qVGmtlpfGHu4etFLkntml38JcsAsO1CBhOX50-7Xkf3cmJXsE-SyDhk0-YhwvsOVVOJdiTXz6hHoexOkY~F0-MUZB1rThzSp4EKCceQeYq5A2xj-1s~SV2ICg-tWvBf0m~nchukPjcfkQXbExqIcUk0offImOPwlx83sEVDGXrhPJnVF97h3ICmFUjp-0oOuqGwJMR7JbJYngqMrdGXyK3jJFMubOvG0WXZv0urvfH0698weloku9FhhPJSX6cycQX-tgI9NQUyvhkKVpElJYkUZLrAJVlNBH~X93jqR1vNDArL3Q4n7gLjBLJgaE3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada State Board of Cosmetology","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology heard a presentation and extensive Q&A on Assembly Bill 371, which would adopt a multistate cosmetology licensure compact, and then recorded a motion opposing the bill.

Leslie Roste (presentation: Future of the Beauty Industry Coalition) and representatives from the Council of State Governments explained the compact mechanics: a multistate privilege issued by an applicant’s home state, a national compact commission to set rules and a shared database to flag adverse actions and multistate licensees. Presenters said compact membership would not require a state to adopt another state’s hour or testing standards, that each state retains sovereignty over scope, hours, testing and licensing fees, and that the commission’s bylaws would later define operational details such as database fields and rules for when a multistate licensee must make a member state their home state.

Board members and staff raised technical and policy concerns during a lengthy discussion. Staff and board members asked about (a) fiscal impacts and whether the board would be required to create a new licensing type and associated statutory fee authority, (b) how fraudulent school diplomas and license fraud would be detected and addressed across states, (c) how a multi-state licensee working temporarily in Nevada would be identified and tracked by inspectors, and (d) what the compact’s enforcement and removal mechanisms would be for a member state that failed to address systemic fraud. Leslie Roste and staff said the compact would create a separate multistate database for flagged licensees and that a commission would write rules and bylaws at its initial meeting (projected July) to answer questions about data fields, fees paid to the commission and adverse-action reporting; she said the compact commission would be self-funded through a small portion of the multistate fee and that fiscal notes in other states have often shown modest first-year costs (many under $20,000) though the board’s staff noted local fiscal uncertainty and the transcript records staff concerns about lost fee revenue and potential need to add at least one staff position to administer the new license.

After the presentation and extended board questions, a board member moved to oppose Assembly Bill 371; the motion was seconded and the board recorded the voice vote as “Aye,” and the motion carried.

Ending: Board staff reiterated that, should the legislature pass AB371, the board would implement the law and follow statutory requirements including any necessary fee or systems changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 24, 2025 Disciplinary Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","A presentation on the proposed cosmetology licensure compact (AB371) outlined how multistate licensing would work; after extended Q&A the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology voted to oppose AB371 on March 24, citing unresolved concerns about fraud, data integration, enforcement and fiscal impacts.","taxTitle","State Board of Cosmetology, Independent Boards, Commissions, or Councils, Organizations, Executive, Nevada","taxId",30739,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6072541,"Cosmetology schools, instructors urge board to oppose Assembly Bill 225’s proposed hour reductions; board approves a template position",857,2725000,3582000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0&start=2725&end=3582","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0/thumbnail_2725000.jpg","/articles/6072541/Nevada/Cosmetology-schools-instructors-urge-board-to-oppose-Assembly-Bill-225s-proposed-hour-reductions-board-approves-a-template-position","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6072541-4188851ac46c8860d8aa1304f90ba6e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770805706&Signature=UN1PtfcXXhZVDomz14fG52jJdD8J3j0AyGg6cf4ExCzM7oxI9nT8~G-aAf2LIGjXD3DsyaLNmEa-vxNIb4~qg6twWeHC~03vKyqdPcEfWm3KRVPSrmwbrQKQMEk08Pfu8Bud~TN2XOT~htHyYdfQrO4KrlZ5D26NDh7eZxOhENmoyjJ9tswh1sk7EdOy73UTCHwBms3rsVlV7P72J2bR36QRKEePidMX5Bxl8b2yLdf2N~rpIqkB8hH4dw8O-wMIRRkk0OFRuRZqJDkiJ-gvma8Qo3rOUUP51wtbsWdX~19iwIIGN-Mm3Nen0K5zjgof37moW6B5VrZ~HPYOR8NC7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a March 24 meeting, dozens of public commenters — including cosmetology school owners, instructors and licensed practitioners — urged the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology to oppose Assembly Bill 225, which they said would reduce required training hours for cosmetology programs and thereby diminish sanitation, safety and scope training.

Public commenters who spoke against the bill included Gwen Bramo of Expertise Cosmetology Institute, Tricia Faust (instructor and aesthetician), Benita Holly (Euphoria Institute campus director), Sandy Dunham (Academy of Hair Design) and Radiance Bryant (licensed cosmetologist). Commentators said reductions from Nevada’s existing hours (1,600) to lower totals would shorten training for nails, skin and hair; they argued such reductions could weaken infection-control instruction and practical hands-on experience.

Board staff described the agenda item as a discussion of Assembly Bill 225 and invited public comment. After public comment, board members discussed their positions. Several board members stated opposition to AB 225 on the record, and then a board member made a motion “to approve the template AB225” (the transcript records the motion as stated: “I will make the motion to approve the template bridal 2 2 5”). The motion was seconded and the board recorded the vote as “Aye;” the motion carried. The transcript does not specify the exact text of the approved template or whether it was a letter, position statement or other document; the board’s staff indicated that written comments on AB225 could be emailed to inspection@nbcosmo.com by 5 p.m. the same day.

Ending: The board moved on to the cosmetology licensure compact presentation after the AB225 item.","Multiple cosmetology school owners, instructors and licensees urged the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology to oppose Assembly Bill 225 (proposed reduction in required training hours); after public comment the board vote approved a template related to AB225 (content of template not specified in the transcript).",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6072544,"Board revokes Asian Massage license after board finds prostitution-related violations; undercover police evidence cited",1026,889000,1915000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0&start=889&end=1915","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0/thumbnail_889000.jpg","/articles/6072544/Nevada/Board-revokes-Asian-Massage-license-after-board-finds-prostitution-related-violations-undercover-police-evidence-cited","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6072544-00fe20d888f6a2d09ae9e2556cc39097/orig.mp4?Expires=1770805706&Signature=TOv0JFHOBl24O2tlcbeIDzh6FK4YbP9OLcGhA9OpBKPbBXAt3jLkhIzM-te1hkOEXsjAbpb-fd39-2nef-x-HQaRpBYTUlVVu1wM-egcFcSB1hsha-hB9WXAyEHlU3D3DG0aZsm6ND2E99APdPJC8AUP7REbItA5U2lxNZjoJsoDsKtZ6L87MurNQ~LgKeDHf6ggDzV~YkkxxHAhM10-9tyzcGz81zhYSiQ~xNAI~84-0CmRZ2efG2R9Kahho9xBxm5Fft93EmwNqLhNrSgYuIwJxKs1RdRKGOMnf04m99biLUCKRNZLx0o15ti0fL-aIavRE7UbhcdtWavyodhKGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology on March 24 heard testimony and evidence in complaint C2024-130 concerning Asian Massage (license S-709220) and found the allegations proven by clear and convincing evidence; the board then revoked the license for 10 years and ordered fines and cost recovery.

Detective Zachary Falldorf of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Special Investigative Section described an undercover operation at Asian Massage, 2605 S. Decatur, Suite 213, on Oct. 30. He testified that he posed as a customer, paid $60 for a 30-minute massage and that during the massage a separate sexual act was negotiated for $200. The police report the officer drafted was admitted in evidence.

The board’s compliance staff — represented in the record by chief compliance officer (identified in the hearing as Jamie Huggins) and the executive director — presented investigative findings that staff said demonstrated failures of supervision and the presence of prostitution-related conduct on the licensed premises. The respondent’s named licensee-in-charge was not present as the licensee in charge at the time of the inspection, according to compliance testimony.

Respondent owner Yujia (transcript name variants) appeared with a translator and made an opening statement and brief closing remarks; counsel and staff questioned witnesses and presented the record. After deliberation the board voted motions first to accept the facts presented and then to find that the allegations occurred. The board then voted to revoke the license for 10 years and to impose administrative fines of $2,000 per violation, to require payment of investigative costs and attorney fees. The motions carried on voice votes recorded in the transcript.

The state asked the board to impose the maximum administrative penalties and to record costs; the executive director placed the requested remedies on the record.

Ending: The board completed the disciplinary action and moved to agenda items concerning legislation and public comments.","After an evidentiary hearing that included testimony from a Las Vegas Metro detective, the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology found the allegations in complaint C2024-130 proven and revoked Asian Massage's license for 10 years, ordered administrative fines of $2,000 per violation and recovery of investigative costs.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6072549,"Nevada cosmetology board revokes Maryland Spa license after default; fines and costs ordered",612,258000,870000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0&start=258&end=870","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3020388-d05f3209e8e94fa2742065d5793fb0e0/thumbnail_258000.jpg","/articles/6072549/Nevada/Nevada-cosmetology-board-revokes-Maryland-Spa-license-after-default-fines-and-costs-ordered","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6072549-4f59a080d3af58bbc8eabf0b48d78688/orig.mp4?Expires=1770805706&Signature=Zc1trs4vjCE2S7jj5ubM52nJvEpVbx8glNlQ0znhx3xSGeI3YCiErb5h2zIQ0KRZNVCLyuOQ8cUz74H2HSC-rdLCxyW5uWkn8NY5I2MVxC4mcTtu5qW7eeH~h5FohfKZF915FZRDhMx6xsIA3TJWX5I0aOL-0bG2DJnf7-1P8c-ZYiT4XYfsi3N1MUKDDiPcVHVOILf99sZTqnF25f4qO2rSX2Ta85Sj-yoCHGf1GnIXvT1TqGgs7x1TjzkU5C9AGtsQTz0rhLxApJBalqJO9DxKyI6EK-jx3Fm38dKww~G2L3P~mJNejYfIa51687K1NgOKV8xftW8nUoC5kM6d8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology on March 24 accepted the factual allegations in complaint C2024-0884 against Maryland Spa (license S709130) and voted to impose discipline after the respondent failed to appear or file an answer.

The complaint, filed March 10, 2024, named Ronald Carrera as owner and operator of Maryland Spa (business ID NB20232876572). The board’s compliance staff said the division mailed the complaint and notice of hearing and that service was ultimately completed at an address obtained via skip trace. Chief compliance officer Jamie Huggins testified that the complaint and supporting exhibits were filed and served and the respondent declined to appear.

Because the respondent failed to appear, the board proceeded on the state’s proof and accepted Allegations 1 through 41 “as presented in the complaint.” The state requested maximum administrative penalties under the cited statutes, revocation of the license for 10 years and recovery of investigation costs. The board then moved to revoke Maryland Spa’s license for 10 years, impose administrative fines of $2,000 per violation to be paid within three months, and require payment of investigative costs and attorney fees; the motion carried.

Steven McDonald, executive director for the board, noted the board’s request for fines and recovery of costs in the record. The transcript shows board members voted “Aye” and the motions carried; no individual negative votes were recorded in the transcript.

The board’s action was taken as a disciplinary sanction after default; no settlement or negotiated alternative was adopted on the record. The board record indicates staff attempted to settle the matter by agreement before proceeding, but the respondent refused to sign a proposed settlement and declined to appear at the hearing.

The board will note the revocation, fines and cost recovery in its licensing and enforcement records; the transcript does not specify any follow-up deadlines beyond the three-month payment window for fines.

Ending: The board moved on to a separate disciplinary matter after concluding the Maryland Spa default hearing.","The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology found the factual allegations in complaint C2024-0884 proven by default after the respondent failed to appear; the board ordered revocation for 10 years and administrative fines plus investigation costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board hears cosmetology compact presentation; after questions it votes to oppose AB371

Cosmetology schools, instructors urge board to oppose Assembly Bill 225’s proposed hour reductions; board approves a template position

Board revokes Asian Massage license after board finds prostitution-related violations; undercover police evidence cited

Nevada cosmetology board revokes Maryland Spa license after default; fines and costs ordered