OfÞcial Newsletter Of The National-Interstate Council Of . - NIC Testing

California JoinsTesting ProgramThe state of California startedto administer the NIC writtentheory exams in all the phases ofCosmetology and Barbering thatthey licensed. From the physical yearof July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010 theboard expects to administer around38,000 exams.By California being a part of theNIC Testing program, it will allowmore flexible mobility among thelicensee’s going from California toother states.NIC would like to commend California for becoming a part of the NICTesting Program.State HappeningsTennessee – The Tennessee Cosmetology Board was challenged by anowner of several Kiosk’s Popups. TheKiosk’s Popups were in malls in Tennessee where the individuals who wereperforming the eyebrow threadingwere not licensed. It was determinedby the Board that eyebrow threadingdoes come under the cosmetology lawsince it is a form of hair removal andanyone performing the service must belicensed in a licensed facility.The Kiosk’s did not meet the Tennessee requirements for licensure nordid they meet the proper sanitationrequirements.Even though eyebrow threading isconsidered an ancient method of hairremoval, it is being regulated by manystates.NIC Bulletin Page 4by Kirby MorrisIt is my pleasure to be able to communicatewith all of you through this great lookingnew publication. The theme of this issue is,“change”. Man, have we heard this word alot in the past 2 years. Yes, politicians lovethe word “change”. If you remember, we asa nation elected our last three presidentson campaigns revolving around the word“change” and in the most recent presidential election both candidates were pushingchange as a slogan. Change is a word thatour industry boasts as well. “The beautyindustry is ever-changing;” “Things changeso rapidly In the cosmetology industry;” or“esthetics equipment is changing so quicklythese days,” are just a few statements we sayoften in our industry regulation of our greatIndustry it also something that is ever-changing, but like our government as a whole,the truth is that state regulation does notmove quickly. There is always time for publiccomment and questions about any changing regulation and that comment eitherhappens with the state regulatory entity ora legislative committee. Let us look at somechange that occurs from the regulatory sideof this great industry.There is always the change of what we call“breakout licenses” happening within theindustry. This is something that is almostalways a legislative issue that the state regulatory entity has no governance over. Breakout licensing happens when someone (aconstituent) convinces a state legislator thatthey should not have to complete all therequired time and/or curriculum the stateregulatory entity is requiring to provide aservice to the public and that this personcan make a living for themselves withoutthe other services or education wrappedinto a specific license or scope of practice.Then the legislator proposes legislation tohave a new standard or license that is notinclusive of the entire scope of practice thestate is currently licensing in order to dothe singular service the constituent wantsto provide.The “Change” of how licensure exams aredeveloped and chosen is a big change theindustry has gone through. In the past, thestate itself usually developed and administered the licensure examination along withissuing the license to practice. Today in theUnited States of America we are held to atesting industry standard for all licensureexaminations. Remember when candidatesfor licensure were evaluated on how theylooked when they took the exam? This issomething that is no longer allowed by licensing bodies as it is not a legally defensibleform of licensure. Licensure examinationsare developed to ensure that those who areincompetent or unsafe are denied the opportunity to harm the public. The licensingentities here in America are required todevelop exams that meet testing industrystandards or they face liabilities the Stateitself will not allow. How the licensing examis chosen by a state is the other side of thechange here. There was a day when the stateregulatory entity was allowed to pick whatthey wanted for the licensure examinationbut as government downsizes and combinesadministrative offices of regulatory entities(as well as often combining the Barber andCosmetology Board) also often goes the ability for a cosmetology or barbering board tobe able to choose its licensing examination.Often the state will issue a multiple boardrequest for proposal (RFP) to examinationproviders and if the examination providercannot supply the state with all the neededlicensing examinations they are out of thebid process with that state. This has beenthe big hurdle for the National Examination Program provided by the not-for- profitorganization. National Interstate Council ofState Boards of Cosmetology (NIC), madeup of all state cosmetology regulatory entities. But this year a merger of partners hasprovided NIC with the ability, for the firsttime in history to actually be able to bid forthe National Examination Program in thesemulti-board contracts.continued on the next page

Use of NIC National Test in the United States and U.S. TerritoriesUse of a “universal” national test is seen as a way to facilitatelicensing reciprocity among states. This map indicates the states that offerBarber exams.Maine “New LawFor Special EventPractices”Legislation in its original form thatwas introduced in Maine wouldhave permitted any licensee to performservices anywhere without any oversightand essentially rendered the need fora shop/salon licensee moot. The billwould have effectively deterred thelicensing of salons with little or nocontrol with the oversight on infectiouscontrol.Through much effort by the boardstressing the importance of licensure,for the purpose of protecting the publicby proper infectious control standards,the legislative committee membersvoted out of committee a new watereddown version which ought to passunanimously.NIC Written & PracticalNIC Written OnlyCultivating Change.In the same vein as the previous examplemost states have also “changed” to computer based testing for the written or theoryexaminations. More than 30 states havedropped paper and pencil examinations andmoved to the 21” century. Along with thischange all licensure examinations are harderto cheat on as the testing providers are ableto scramble and change exam forms on thefly to combat the everlasting problem ofcandidates cheating on examinations.It is my opinion that the biggest change thatour industry has had we have absolutely nocontrol over. This is the changes in bacteria and viruses. This has created so muchnew need for regulation and education. Itwas 6 years of teaching the instructors ofour country about Methicillin ResistantStaphylococcusArlus (MRSA) before thisfinally hit Virginia and caused a publicschool system to shut down. Now I findmyself talking about Voncomycin ResistantEnterococci (VRE) which is the next genera-Non-NIC StatesContinued from page 4tion of deadly super bugs or Multiple DrugResistant Organisms (MDRO’s). These areso dangerous that they can kill in less than5 days and are spread by hand to handcontact as well as on drapes, towels, chairs,door handles, etc. These as well as the Streptococci Necrotizing Fasciitis (flesh eatingdisease) and Herpetic Kerato conjunctivitis(herpes of the eye) are all things that can bespread in the salons, sliops, and spas andare maiming and killing our clients. Thethings we teach our students about thesehealth issues can make or break them inthe world outside our schools. These arealso issues that have brought change to theregulation of the industry. Today more thanever we need to protect clients and ourselvesby using a neck strip between the drape andclient and everyone should take the safetyprecaution of sanitizing your hands beforeand after every client.This article was printed in its entirety inthe first issue of Beauty Link, published byThe watered down bill, in its newamended form leaves in place the current list of certain practices permittedoutside of a licensed salon and adds anew exception with a permitting system for each special event performedoutside a licensed salon. It also allowsthe board to develop rules to define a“special event”, types of services permitted, appropriate safety and infectiouscontrol standards and other standardsdeemed necessary for the protection ofthe public.The Board announced that the billpassed in its amended form which willcreate a new permitting system for anyspecial event services performed.For more information contact JerriBetts, www.maine.gov/professionallicensing, Phone (207) 624-8625.the American Association of CosmetologySchools and the Cosmetology Educators ofAmerica. Kirby will be presenting a program“Why We Regulate Cosmetology” at theAnnual CEA Convention on July 13, 2009in Las Vegas.NIC Bulletin Page 5

40 Years.Miss Vanek, NHCH, stated “This undertaking would require a tremendous amount ofwork.” And asked “If the cost had been resolved?” Stanley Foss, NHCA, asked “If theprogram would necessitate states with lowernumber of hours being forced to increasetheir hours in cosmetology?”Mrs. Piens, NIC, advised the committee thatthe importance of exposure to this programwas of prime concern and told that figureshad not been finalized yet.Miss Vanek, NHCA, commented “I canagree with the desired goal, but feel wemust know all the pertinent facts associatedwith such a program. Will it’s accomplishedexpedition in moving if ever tied in withaccreditation, perhaps more than we realizewill be accomplished.”Evelyn Wilburn, NIC, stated “Where comparable programs have proven their worth,namely, the nurses, we are greatly encouraged towards our goal.”Mrs. Piens gave the results of a survey thatwas done to see what the state’s interestswere. 46 states answered. 29 stated that they were definitely interested. 5 states were undecided. 5 states replied “No.” 7 states wrote letters relative to the advantages and disadvantages.Mrs. Piens also said that the testing programcould be comparable to the nurses’ programaccepted in all states.By March, 1969, Aurie with the help of hercommittee, had met with various groups inNew York to see who they wanted for a company to help them get the program started.In other words, Aurie wanted to have all herNIC Bulletin Page 6Continued from page 1ducks in a row. Two companies were askedto submit proposals: The Educational Testing Services and Psychological Corp. For anumber of reasons, the decision was madeto proceed to negotiate with PsychologicalCorp. to develop the program.It was at that time when Mr. Nick Cimagliaof Milady informed NIC that his companywould discontinue its efforts of studentexamination. He also offered NIC theuse of all the test questions being used byMilady.Also, Aurie, had retained the services of anattorney to incorporate NIC as a nonprofiteducational corporation, Mr. O. WayneCorley was retained as legal counsel.By April 25th, Dr. Wimburn (Bill) Wallaceof Psychological Corp. was the person whowould work with NIC in putting the program together. The contract was signed andthe states were notified.By July 1, the outline of topics for the testwas drawn up. This was one of the majorsteps towards the actual development ofthe examination. This was when Aurieappointed a test writing committee. Theirduty would be to start working on writingtest questions.When the Conference was held in Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 1969, Aurie and O.Wayne Corley presented the delegates withwhat they had done so far to get the testingprogram started. There were 13 states whosaid they would become a part of the program when it was started. Dr. Bill Wallacealso addressed the group by informing themthat it was about ready to go. The delegatesoverwhelmingly supported the program.As soon as the Conference was over Aurieand her committee started to work on thequestions with the help of Dr. Wallace.When the NHCA-NIC Liaison Committeemet in New York in October 1969, Mrs.Piens reported that NIC had accepted aNational Test plan submitted by Psycological Corp. for the purpose to raise standardsof the profession by improving examinations of students, improving curriculumof beauty schools, establishing reciprocitybetween states.During discussion, NHCA supported thebasic idea of the plan but questioned how atesting program could supersede state lawsin reciprocity, since state law requirementsvary as to age, hours, curriculum and background education. Also questioned was theright of the State Boards to use examinationfees for material from out of state. Alsonoted was the fact that there was no testingprogram for practical work. NIC stated thatthey had a blueprint for school curriculumwhich the committee had reviewed. Thatthe testing program was scheduled to beginin January, 1970. The national tests wouldprovide a standard of comparisons betweenstates or regions and pave the way for a system of reciprocity of licensure which wouldallow individual cosmetologists recognitionwherever they may move within the UnitedStates. The Chairman of NHCA projectedthe idea that it could be misused and a testing program could lower standards and pullthe schools down to the minimum requiredby the law rather than the high standardsset forth by the NHCA Association. Auriecommented that “The National TestingProgram is a step in the right direction toraise standards. The Schools supported itand many State Boards. NIC hopes thatNHCA will also support it.”That step in the right direction was the startfor the growth of the testing program andit is still growing today. The program gotits initial start the first of February, 1970with 13 states participating. The true support and encouragement for the programthat Aurie received has helped build thefoundation of a great venture that Aurie still has dreams for. This was herbaby and now it has turned 40.

Hearing ProhibitsFish Pedicure ServicesThe office of Administrative Hearings inSeattle, Washington, issued an InitialOrder by the Department of Licensing,Business and Professional Division onMarch 25, 2009 to the Peridot Nail Salonthat prohibits the salon from offering anyfish pedicure services. The salon had violated the provisions of the Chapter 18.16 and18.235 RCW and Chapter 380–20 WAC.Susan Colard, Assistant Administrator withthe Department of Licensing representedthe Department.On September 25, 2008, when the Department received a complaint, Ms. Colardand a Department investigator made anunannounced visit to the salon providingfish pedicures. Upon entering the salon theDepartment observed two fish tanks eachcontaining 100 fish. The water in the tankscontained visible fish waste with particlespresent on the bottom of the tanks. TheDepartment requested the salon owner todemonstrate the procedure used for a fishpedicure.After a visit to the salon, the Departmentissued to all salons a written clarificationof the Department’s position on fish pedicures. Then on October 1, 2008, Ms. Colardreturned to the salon to personally delivera copy of the letter on the clarification anddenied the salon’s request to continue providing the fish pedicure services.By October 3, 2008, the state of WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, AquaticInvasive Species Unit issued correspondence to all salon owners regarding theproper manner for disposal of pedicure fishGarra Rufa and Chin Chin fish. These twospecies are considered invasive and disposalsuggestions were designed to avoid contactwith or entry into state waters.On October 10, 2008 the salon requested tothe Departmet of Licensing to reconsider itsprohibition of the fish pedicure service. OnOctober 12, 2008, Ann Martin, Chairmanof the Washington Cosmetology AdvisoryBoard informed Ms. Colard by email ofthe Board’s conclusions of its review of fishpedicure. The email concluded with thestatement “does having a fish pedicure havemore value than the potential risk to health?Our answer is quite simply, “No.”Again on October 15, 2008, the salonrequested the Department to reconsiderits decision. The owner also advised theDepartment that new safety procedureshad been implemented that would ensurethe health and safety of the clients andenvironment. The procedures included asystem that automatically changes the waterbetween pedicures, a large supply of fishwhich allowed the change of fish betweencustomers and a UV system that filters thewater before drainage. The salon providedthe Department information on an antiinfective sterilizing agent it was consideringusing to sterilize human feet. Ms. Colardforwarded the information to Dr. Selinger,MQHC, who responded with the following:1. Potassium Permanganata is used in fishtanks, but does not sterilize. 2. Zephran isused to clean feet, not fish and does notcompletely sterilize nor destroy bacterialspores or hepatitis virus. 3. UV light is usedto treat psoriasis and other than medicalone is not allowed to diagnose psoriasis orprescribe treatment.On October 27, 2008, the salon completeda Request for a Hearing form and onNovember 6, 2008 the salon was issueda Temporary Order to Cease and Desist.Prior to offering fish pedicure services, thesalon owner felt that through research itwas concluded such was a novelty that wasnot prohibited by the Department’s rulessince it is not as thorough as a pedicureperformed by a licensee. The salon did notcontact the Department prior to offeringthe services believing it was permissible tooffer the fish pedicure based on belief thatit was permitted in other states.The salon had invested around 8,000.00(which included purchase of 400 Chin Chinfish) in equipment related to the services.Chin Chin fish were used instead of GarraRufa because they were less expensive. After6 months the fish grow teeth and must bereturned to the dealer for younger, toothless fish. A company, Garra Sutra, LLC,currently distributes the Garra Rufa fish toeight states within the United States so itis not clear if the distribution is for use infish pedicures rather than mere ornamentalownership. The company is currently prohibited from distributing Garra Rufa fishin at least the states of California, Texas,and Arizona.Even though there are no statutory or regulatory provision which specifically addressesthe practice of fish pedicure services, the Department’s classification of fish as a “tool” isappropriate since it is fish who are deliveringthe pedicure services by grooming (nibbling)on a client’s foot. These “tools” (fish) cannotbe adequately sterilized to the same extentas pedicure/manicure instruments. Fish canbe carriers of parasites and many other typesof bacteria and diseases that can be harmfulto humans. Also environmental concernsby the improper disposal of deceased ChinChain or Garra Rufa fish.It was concluded that “the practice of providing fish pedicures as it currently existsis inherently and dangerously flawed andcreates the potential for undue and seriousrisk of harm to the public. The fair preponderance of credible evidence establishesthat the practice of providing fish pedicureservices violate the provisions of Chapter18.16 RCW and the Department issuanceof

the testing of students for licensure. When Aurie did her first exam she had failed everyone the first day. It was then that she . OfÞcial Newsletter of the National-Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology, Inc. www.nictesting.org. NIC Bulletin Page 2 NIC 2008-2009 President LaFaye Austin 3401 Caton Place Enid, OK 73701 580 .