New York State Appearance Enhancement Advisory Committee s1

1MEETING SUMMARY

NEW YORK STATE APPEARANCE ENHANCEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 30, 2017

The meeting was held at the Department of State, 99 Washington Avenue, Albany; and 123 William Street, NYC.

I. CALL TO ORDER, INTRODUCTIONS and OFFICIAL ATTENDNACE

Michelle D’Allaird called the meeting to order at 10:34 am. Roll call was performed and announced there was not a quorum. The official attendance was as follows:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS DEPARTMENT OF STATE STAFF Michelle D’Allaird Dave Mossberg, Department Counsel Shirley Cheng Ernita Gantt Mary Jo Moore Excused: Denise Tidings Nichole Londo Emily Lupe Rae Ann Amacher Marcella Rose Richard Caputo Marc Mastrobuono Michael Hawkins Jodi DeLollo Anthony Fiore Sharon Charland Debra Ryan-Campana VISITORS Cheryl Winstel, NYSED Diana Georgia, NYS Beauty School Assoc. Lisa Stiles-Roy, NYSED Thomas Reimer, NYSED Melissa Lune, NYSED Anthony Civitano, NYS Beauty School Assoc. Sheila Cato, Christine Valmy School II. DEPARTMENT REPORTS

Enforcement Update - E. Gantt reported on the 2016 Appearance Enhancement Enforcement Initiative whereby 25% of all businesses were inspected. The initiative will continue in 2017 with inspection of 20% of all Appearance Enhancement businesses.

Trends Committee – D. Tidings reported: The subcommittee met on October 26, 2016 whereby they discussed some current procedures/equipment/products and their attempt to determine if they fall, or should fall, within the scope of an Appearance Enhancement license or another category. It was determined by Licensing Counsel that a list of procedures and definitions should be prepared by the subcommittee for his review and the possibility of drafting prohibitory regulations as warranted. The committee will meet again to discuss questionable procedures and make recommendations for prohibiting those that do not fall under the scope of practice.

With regard to the suggestion of considering a makeup artist license, the Departments Counsel informed the subcommittee that a legislative change would be necessary. He also mentioned that a legislative change is generally justified when we are protecting a large group of consumers; however, many of the unlicensed activities in the makeup industry relate to groups that fall outside the Department’s jurisdiction.

The subcommittee spoke about the possibility of revising the esthetics curriculum to include specific/specialized areas. It was suggested that the basic skills being taught in the current esthetics curriculum are the basis for the safe delivery of services. Individuals who want to become more familiar with advanced procedures should seek further training (certification) in those areas not prohibited by statute.

The Department has received recommendations to update the Nail Specialty practical exam and consider removal of the acrylic nail procedure due to potential health hazards associated with exposure to chemicals used in these products and lack of proper ventilation at some of the exam sites. The Department is in the process of forming a subcommittee to help with the redevelopment of the Nail Specialty practical exam and explore options to help alleviate exposures to toxins. In order to immediately address some of the ventilation issues at exam sites, the Department has supplied N95 respirator masks to all nail specialty practical examination sites for use upon request.

III. ACTION ITEMS

The meeting summary of October 12, 2016 could not be approved because there was not a quorum.

IV. NEW BUSINESS

Michelle D’Allaird encouraged the board to consider a predetermined agenda for 2017 that would include all the topics/issues the Board would like to accomplish for the year. She stated the Appearance Enhancement industry is changing dramatically and that the gray areas need to be addressed, as both licensees and consumers are seeking clarification. Michelle also stated we need closure to curriculum proposals and practical and written exams are in need of revision.

V. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

A public member commented on nationwide licensing trends; confusion about the scope of practice as it pertains to enhanced services and the 26-hour nail trainee course. He also stated his interest in serving on the subcommittee that examines scope of practice.

A public member asked if the Nail Specialty 250 hour curriculum that has been used to translate into the various languages has passed legislation. D. Mossberg replied there has been no regulatory change to that curriculum and is still being worked on. D. Mossberg further stated, the only curriculum change that has recently been approved is the 26 hour Nail Specialty Trainee.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 a.m.