Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules

Administrative Rules Division (ARD)

MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

and COST-BENEFT ANALYSIS (RIS)

Agency Information:

Department name:

Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Bureau name:

Bureau of Professional Licensing

Name of person filling out RIS:

Dena Marks

Phone number of person filling out RIS:

517-335-3679

E-mail of person filling out RIS:

MarksD1@michigan.gov

Rule Set Information:

ARD assigned rule set number:

2022-29 LR

Title of proposed rule set:

Barbers – General Rules

Comparison of Rule(s) to Federal/State/Association Standard

1. Compare the proposed rules to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency or

accreditation association, if any exist.

Each state establishes its own requirements with respect to barbers, so there are no federal rules or standards set by a

national or state agency that the proposed rules can be compared to.

A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?

MCL 339.205 requires the department to promulgate rules that are necessary and appropriate for it to fulfill its role.

MCL 339.308 requires the board to promulgate rules that are necessary and appropriate for it to fulfill its role.

MCL 339.1110 requires the department to promulgate rules to establish the criteria for determining whether an hour

of instruction at a state school of cosmetology is substantially similar to an hour of instruction at a barber college.

MCL 339.1112 requires the board to promulgate rules setting forth standards for sanitation in barbershops and barber

colleges.

The rules are not required by federal mandate.

B. If these rules exceed a federal standard, please identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it is

necessary that the proposed rules exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and benefits arising out

of the deviation.

The rules do not exceed a federal standard.

2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location, topography,

natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.

The proposed rules are consistent with the standards required by the Occupational Code and are largely consistent

with the requirements of other states in the Great Lakes Region. Every state in the Great Lakes region provides for

the regulation of this profession.

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 2

A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out of

the deviation.

The standards pertaining to licensure, education and examination requirements, and sanitation differ from state to

state. Overall, the standards in the proposed rules do not exceed those of the other states in the Great Lakes region.

3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed

rules.

There are no other laws, rules, or other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with these proposed

rules.

A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and local laws

applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of the efforts undertaken

by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.

No coordination is needed because there are no other applicable laws that regulate the areas addressed in the proposed

rules.

4. If MCL 24.232(8) applies and the proposed rules are more stringent than the applicable federally mandated

standard, provide a statement of specific facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more

stringent rules.

MCL 24.232(8) does not apply.

5. If MCL 24.232(9) applies and the proposed rules are more stringent than the applicable federal standard,

provide either the Michigan statute that specifically authorizes the more stringent rules OR a statement of the

specific facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more stringent rules.

MCL 24.232(9) does not apply.

Purpose and Objectives of the Rule(s)

6. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.

The purpose of the proposed rules is set forth below:

R 339.6002: This rule provides definitions for terms used in the rule set. It is being revised to provide new

definitions for terms used to increase reader understanding.

R 339.6021: This is a new proposed rule to provide the examination requirements for licensure. It is intended to

assist an applicant in identifying the examination approved by the board and required for licensure.

R 339.6022: This rule provides the requirements for licensure by endorsement. It is being revised to clarify how an

applicant must document that the requirements for education, training, and examination have been met. It is intended

to assist an applicant in meeting the requirements to be licensed in Michigan.

R 339.6023: This rule provides the requirements for relicensure. It is being amended to clarify that an applicant who

has held an active barber license in another state, jurisdiction, or country for at least 1 of the 3 years immediately

preceding application satisfies the requirements. The rule is intended to assist an applicant in meeting the

requirements to be relicensed in Michigan.

R 339.6031: This rule pertains to the premises of a barber college or barbershop. The rule is being revised to update

sanitation standards. The rule is intended to advise the owner of a barber college or barbershop of the sanitation

standards necessary to ensure public health and safety.

R 339.6033: This rule pertains to cleaning, disinfecting, and sterilizing tools and equipment. This rule is being

revised to update sanitation standards. The rule is intended to advise a licensee, student, or apprentice of the sanitation

standards necessary to ensure public health and safety.

R 339.6035: This rule pertains to the storage and use of certain items on the premises of a barbershop or a barber

college. This rule is being revised to update standards pertaining to astringents and treatments of the eye. This rule is

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 3

intended to advise the owner of a barber college or barbershop that the storage of certain astringents is prohibited, and

to advise a licensee, student, or apprentice on the prohibition of the use of certain astringents and treatments of the eye

to ensure public health and safety.

R 339.6037: This rule pertains to patron protection. This rule is being revised to update sanitation standards. The rule

is intended to advise a licensee, student, or apprentice of the sanitation standards necessary to ensure public health and

safety.

R 339.6039: This rule pertains to blood spill procedures. This rule is being revised to update sanitation standards.

The rule is intended to advise a licensee, student, or apprentice of the sanitation standards necessary to ensure public

health and safety.

R 339.6040: This rule is being rescinded and the substance relocated to R 339.6044 for organization and to comply

with current drafting standards.

R 339.6041: This rule pertains the construction standards and equipment requirements for a barber college. The rule

is being revised to clarify that it is the owner’s duty to ensure that the standards and requirements are met, and the

revisions eliminate the list of optional equipment. The rule is intended to clarify the standards and requirements for

greater compliance.

R 339.6042: This is a proposed new rule that provides the duties of the owner of a barber college or barbershop

concerning training requirements, and it sets out the program training requirements for a barber college or barbershop

conducting an apprenticeship program. The rule is being added to advise these training programs of these

requirements, and it advises the programs of the ability to accept transfer credits under certain circumstances. The

rule is intended to inform a barber college or a barbershop conducting an apprenticeship these requirements and how

transfer credits may be made.

R 339.6044: This is a proposed new rule that pertains to the barber college’s ability to substitute hours of

substantially similar credits completed at a Michigan-licensed cosmetology school for hours of instruction in the

barber college curriculum. This rule is being relocated from current R 339.6040 for organization and to comply with

current drafting standards. This rule is required by statute, MCL 339.1110.

R 339.6045: This is a proposed new rule pertaining to distance education requirements. The proposed rule provides a

definition for distance education, standards for the delivery of distance education, and establishes the requirements for

the delivery of distance education. The rule is designed to assist schools and students using distance education.

R 339.6047: This rule pertains to the curriculum requirements for a barber college. The rule is being revised to

include the curriculum requirements for apprenticeship programs. The rule is intended to ensure that a student or

apprentice has received the training needed to be licensed as a barber and to ensure public safety.

R 339.6049: This rule pertains to student records. The rule is being revised to include the requirements for

apprenticeship records. It is also being revised to eliminate the barber college monthly reporting requirement, as that

is not required by statute. The rule is intended to ensure that a barber college’s student’s and a barbershop’s

apprentice’s education is documented to ensure compliance with the curriculum requirements under R 339.6047.

A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.

The proposed rules are not expected to change the frequency of the targeted behavior.

B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.

Barbers are regulated by statute. Clarifying definitions, licensure by endorsement requirements, sanitation

requirements, apprenticeship requirements, and prelicensure education requirements will make compliance easier for

applicants and licensees.

C. What is the desired outcome?

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 4

A person who wishes to be licensed as a barber, barbershop, or barber college is regulated. By improving and clarifying

the rules, students, apprentices, applicants, and licensees should find compliance easier. This should result in fewer

questions, fewer regulatory problems, and greater protection of the public.

7. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood

that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.

The statutes pertaining to barbers were amended to permit barber apprenticeships, but standards have not yet been

established by rule. Additionally, the rules related to sanitation are outdated. The proposed rules will provide

standards for apprenticeships and will provide greater protection to the public by updating sanitation standards. The

new rules will also provide greater clarity for students, apprentices, applicants, and licensees.

A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?

The current rules lack requirements for apprenticeships. Additionally, the sanitation rules are outdated. The proposed

changes will clarify the requirements for an apprenticeship and update sanitation rules to ensure public safety.

8. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting a

regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.

The proposed rules provide a regulatory mechanism for barbers, barbershops, and barber colleges. To protect the

health, safety, and welfare of the public, it is important that members of the profession adhere to professional

standards.

9. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.

There are no current rules that are obsolete or unnecessary, but R 339.6040 will be rescinded and the substance of the

rule relocated to R 339.6044 for organization and to comply with current drafting standards.

Fiscal Impact on the Agency

Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e. hiring additional staff,

higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and above what is currently

expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such as opportunity costs, the value of

time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on expenditures.

10. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings

for the agency promulgating the rule).

The proposed rules are not expected to have a fiscal impact on the agency.

11. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any

expenditures associated with the proposed rules.

No agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided because there are no expenditures associated

with the proposed rules.

12. Describe how the proposed rules are necessary and suitable to accomplish their purpose, in relationship to the

burden(s) the rules place on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or duplicative

acts.

The proposed rules are required by statute to provide regulatory requirements for barbers, barbershops, and barber

colleges. The proposed rules are written to impose no more burden on individuals than is necessary to accomplish the

statutory requirements and to provide for the public health and safety. There is no financial or administrative burden

on individuals as a result of the proposed rules.

A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and reasonable

compared to the burdens.

The proposed rules do not place any new burden on an individual.

Impact on Other State or Local Governmental Units

13. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e. cities, counties,

school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or local

governmental units (i.e. cities, counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of equipment,

supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and any ongoing

monitoring.

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 5

There are no anticipated increases or reductions for other state or local governmental units as result of the proposed

rules.

14. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school

district by the rules.

There are no anticipated or intended programs, services, duties, or responsibilities imposed on any city, town, village,

or school district as a result of these proposed rules.

A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rules. This section should

include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational practices.

There are no anticipated actions that a governmental unit must take to comply with the proposed rules.

15. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding

source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rules.

No appropriations have been made to any governmental units as result of the proposed rules. No additional

expenditures are anticipated or intended with the proposed rules.

Rural Impact

16. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?

The proposed rules are not expected to impact rural areas. The proposed rules apply to individuals licensed under the

Occupational Code, regardless of his or her location.

A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.

The proposed rules will not impact public or private interests in rural areas.

Environmental Impact

17. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.

The proposed rules will not have any impact on the environment.

Small Business Impact Statement

18. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.

The department did not consider exempting small businesses because they are not regulated by the proposed rules.

19. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) the manner in which the agency reduced the economic impact

of the proposed rules on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency to comply

with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rules upon small businesses as described below (in

accordance with MCL 24.240(1)(a-d)), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful or feasible.

The rules cannot exempt a small business because the rules do not directly regulate small businesses. The rules

regulate licensees. Further, the Michigan Occupational Code requires barbers, barbershops, and barber colleges to be

licensed.

A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable effect on

small businesses.

There are approximately 5,689 barbers, barber colleges, and barbershops in Michigan.

A licensee may be or may work in a small business. However, no matter what type of business environment the

licensee is or works in, the licensee will have to comply with the proposed rules. The rules do not impact small

businesses differently because the impact is to the licensee only.

B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small

businesses under the rules after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other administrative costs.

The agency did not establish separate compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses. The proposed rules

will apply to all licensees. The rules were drafted to be the least burdensome on all affected licensees.

C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for small

businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 6

The agency did not consolidate or simplify compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses with the

proposed rules because the proposed rules do not directly impact small businesses.

D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards required

by the proposed rules.

The agency did not establish performance standards to replace design or operation standards required by these rules.

20. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size or

geographic location.

The proposed rules do not directly impact small business. They impact a licensee. Therefore, there is no

disproportionate impact on a small business because of its size or geographic location.

21. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to

comply with the proposed rules.

The proposed rules do not require any report, and there is no separate cost to a small business to comply with the

proposed rules.

22. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of

equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.

There are no expected costs for equipment, supplies, labor, or administrative costs that a small business would incur

in complying with the proposed rules.

23. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses

would incur in complying with the proposed rules.

There are no expected costs for legal, consulting, or accounting services that a small business would incur in

complying with the proposed rules.

24. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without

adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.

There are no expected costs to a small business that will cause economic harm to a small business or the marketplace

as a result of the proposed rules.

25. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser

standards for compliance by small businesses.

The proposed rules impose requirements on licensees rather than a small business. Even if a licensee’s practice

qualifies as a small business, the department could not exempt that business because it would create disparity in the

regulation of the profession.

Therefore, there is no cost to the agency for administering or enforcing the rules because exempting or setting lesser

standards of compliance for a small business is not in the best interest of the public.

26. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small

businesses.

The proposed rules impose requirements on individual licensees rather than a small business. Even if a licensee’s

work qualifies as a small business, the department could not exempt that business because it would create a disparity

in the regulation of the profession. Therefore, exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for a small

business is not in the best interest of the public.

27. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed rules.

The department worked with the Michigan Board of Barber Examiners in the development of the proposed rules.

The Board is composed of members of the profession and public members.

A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).

No small businesses were involved in the development of the rules.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rules (independent of statutory impact)

28. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.

There are no estimated compliance costs with these rule amendments on businesses or groups.

A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit from the

proposed rules.

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 7

No businesses or groups will be directly affected or benefitted by the proposed rules. No additional costs will be

imposed on any businesses or groups.

B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed rules (i.e.

new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Please identify the types and number of businesses

and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.

No additional costs will be imposed on any businesses or groups.

29. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals (regulated individuals or

the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new

equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.

There will be no new compliance costs to an individual as a result of the proposed rules.

A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?

All licensees and applicants are affected by the proposed rules.

B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?

There is no qualitative or quantitative impact on individuals as a result of the proposed rules.

30. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result

of the proposed rules.

There are no cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result of the

proposed rules.

31. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules. Please

provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as your assumptions.

The primary and direct benefits of the proposed rules is to applicants and licensees, as the proposed rules will add

requirements for apprenticeships, update out-of-date information, reorganize, and clarify all requirements in the rule

set.

32. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.

The rules are not expected to have an impact on business growth, job creation, or job elimination in Michigan.

33. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their

industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.

The department does not expect any individuals or businesses to be disproportionately impacted by the rules as a

result of their industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.

34. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the

methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of the proposed rules and a cost-

benefit analysis of the proposed rules.

Illinois: https://www.idfpr.com/profs/barber.asp

Indiana: https://www.in.gov/pla/professions/cosmetology-and-barber-home/

Minnesota: https://mn.gov/boards/barber-examiners/

New York: https://dos.ny.gov/all-licenses?f%5B0%5D=filter_term%3A1886; https://dos.ny.gov/barber#:~:text=%

20To%20apply%20for%20a%20Barber%20license%2C%20you,5%20Successfully%20complete%20the%20NYS%

20practical...%20More%20

Ohio: https://cos.ohio.gov/

Pennsylvania:

https://www.dos.pa.gov/ProfessionalLicensing/BoardsCommissions/BarberExaminers/Pages/default.aspx

Wisconsin: https://dsps.wi.gov/pages/Professions/barber/Default.aspx

A. How were estimates made, and what were your assumptions? Include internal and external sources, published

reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need for the proposed

rules.

MCL 24.245(3)

RIS-Page 8

Since the rules are required by statute, no estimates were made.

Alternative to Regulation

35. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.

The rules are required by statute; there is no reasonable alternative to the proposed rules.

A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.

Since the rules are required by statute, a statutory change would be needed to provide an alternative.

36. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would

operate through private market-based mechanisms. Please include a discussion of private market-based systems

utilized by other states.

Since the rules are required by statute, private market-based systems cannot serve as an alternative. States regulate

barbers, barbershops, and barber colleges by statute, regulation, or both. Private market-based systems are not used

for licensing and regulation. The licensing and regulation are state functions, so a regulatory program independent of

state intervention cannot be established.

37. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not

incorporated into the rules. This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions and

discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.

Since the rules are specifically required by statute, there are no alternatives to the proposed rules that the agency

could consider. They are necessary for the administration and enforcement of the licensing process.

Additional Information

38. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with

the rules, if applicable.

The instructions for compliance are included in the rules.

MCL 24.245(3)