Enforcement committee advances proposed overhaul of administrative-fines schedule, directs staff to draft rulemaking

At a virtual Enforcement Inspections Committee meeting (board name not specified in the transcript), committee members reviewed proposed changes to the board's schedule of administrative fines and voted to direct staff to prepare rulemaking language to present to the full board.

Deputy Executive Officer Carrie Harris framed the discussion by citing SB 803: "SB 803, updated 07/2004 to read that the board shall establish, by regulation, a schedule of administrative fines for violations of this chapter that directly impact consumer safety." The committee spent the session working through proposed dollar amounts for a large group of sanitation and safety violations and took a formal vote to ask staff to draft a rulemaking package.

The review covered dozens of discrete violations, with the committee generally accepting staff's proposed increases for higher-risk items and debating adjustments for lower-risk items. Key decisions and proposals captured in the session include: Carrie Harris said the board's starting point comes from SB 803 and the committee's earlier drafting work. The staff-proposed schedule raised many fines from current levels (for example, the proposed schedule for incorrect disinfection of electrical tools moved from the current $50/$100/$150 to $100/$200/$300). The committee retained the staff proposal for whirlpool foot spa contamination, which inspectors cited per foot-spa basin at $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second and $750 for a third offense. For one foot-basin item (failure to clean a basin after use of a disposable liner), committee members agreed to lower the top tier and instead adopt an approximately $125/$250/$500 graduated schedule after discussion that the risk record for that specific violation was lower than for other foot-spa violations. Several sanitation items (improper storage of new supplies, carrying tools on garments, labeled containers/ double-dipping) kept modest proposed increases (typical schedules ranged from $50 up to $250 or $500 depending on risk).

The committee also moved several invasive-procedure and hazardous-substance items to a higher fine tier. Members voted to treat prohibited tools (for example, razor-edge tools used to remove calluses or needle-like extraction tools) with a proposed fine schedule of $500 for a first offense, $1,000 for a second and $1,500 for a third, up from a staff proposal of $300/$600/$900. The same $500/$1,000/$1,500 scale was applied to performing invasive procedures (microneedling tools) and to medium/deeper chemical peels (performing invasive skin exfoliation), reflecting committee concern about the public-safety implications of those services and public comment urging stronger deterrence.

Committee members clarified how inspectors would cite violations: most violations would be cited once per inspection regardless of how many instances the inspector observed in the establishment; the notable exception is dirty whirlpool foot spas, which the committee affirmed are cited per basin. Carrie Harris explained this citation practice to the group and in response to public questions. Several members asked staff to ensure the rulemaking text explicitly states whether a fine is assessed per item found or per-establishment instance.

Public commenters urged different changes. Wendy Cochran of the California Aesthetic Alliance asked the committee to clarify whether fines apply per item or per establishment and argued for higher first-offense fines for microneedling tools so findings in an inspection would operate as a stronger deterrent: "I feel that if folks know that microneedling tools, found in your establishment during an inspection, if that citation is relatively high as a first offense, that that will be more of a deterrent." Jamie Schraubeck of Precision Nails urged raising fines for prohibited tools to match other high-risk items: "I think those proposed fines should be the 500, 1 thousand, and 1,500 because it is very intentional if you have prohibited tools in your establishment." Other public speakers raised enforcement and public-safety concerns: a commenter identified as Mary asked for stronger oversight of electrolysis providers who may be unlicensed; a licensed barber urged higher fines and more education focused on neck dusters and barbecide jars, calling neck dusters "such a huge gross thing in barbershops."

After discussion the committee moved and seconded a motion to "direct staff to make the amendments as discussed today and recommend to the full board the updated language in Title 16, Code of Regulations, section 974 for discussion and possible initiation of a rulemaking proposal." The roll-call vote recorded Danielle Munoz, Paulette Kavanaugh and Tamika Miller as voting to approve the motion; the motion passed by unanimous vote of committee members present.

The committee meeting covered the first half of the board's proposed fines schedule changes; staff said it will incorporate the committee's adjustments into draft regulatory text and return the package to the full board for consideration. The committee did not set a timetable for the full board hearing, and any final fines will be established only after the formal rulemaking process and board adoption.

(Committee discussion and votes occurred during the public meeting; public comment and several technical clarifications were incorporated into the staff direction to draft rulemaking language.)