The Oregon State Board of Cosmetology may be granted greater independence from the state government if a bill supported by the governor passes the state legislature.

A 1991 property tax cut forced Oregon Gov. Barbara Roberts to reduce state spending by approximately 25%. Based on the findings of two governor-appointed task forces, Roberts formed a team of state employees to propose a reorganization plan, which recommended putting 21 of the state’s 200 boards and commissions under an “alternative service delivery model,” says Susan Wilson, administrator for licensing and regulatory boards and a member of the reorganization team.

The model gives the board greater independence from government budgetary controls. This means the board’s budget, which comes strictly from licensing fees, would no longer be reviewed by the executive section or the state legislature. However, civil penalties and regulatory authority would still be under government control.


The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology has revamped its sanitation regulations for cosmetologists, nail technicians, and electrologists. Among other changes, proper instrument sanitation has been outlined step by step, and new regulations address how to handle disposable implements and chemical waste.


In a move that may eventually bring nail technician licensing to Iowa, the Iowa State Board of Cosmetology passed a bill in July 1992 that requires licensing for manicurists.

Manicuring is defined by the Iowa board as “the price of cleansing, shaping, or polishing the fingernails and massaging the hands and lower arms of a person.” A manicurist must show proof of completing a 40-hour training course in a licensed cosmetology or barber school when she applies for a license.

“Nail technology” services, which include all artificial extensions, pedicures, manicures, extremity massages, and hair removal, can still only be performed by a licensed cosmetologist.


In November 1992, the Texas State Board of Cosmetology decided at a public meeting to modify the practical exam for nail technicians to include sculptured acrylics, wraps, and gels. The new exam should be in effect by February 1993.

Because of the time involved in testing students on all three artificial extension techniques, only one of the three will be tested on any given exam day.


New guidelines recently released by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are intended to help manufacturers determine what environmental product claims can and cannot be used. The guidelines apply to all consumer products and are intended to reduce confusion and prevent the false or misleading use of environmental terms such as “ozone friendly” and “environmentally friendly” on product labels and in advertisements.

The guidelines are a joint effort of the FTC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S Office of Consumer Affairs. While they are not legally enforceable, the FTC hopes they will ensure more accurate, specific claims and provide environmentally conscious consumers with more reliable information.

The guide describes various claims, noting those that should be avoided because they are likely to be misleading, and illustrates the kinds of qualifying statements that may have to be added to other claims to prevent consumer deception. For example, the guidelines say it is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product is safe for or “friendly” to the ozone layer. “In general,” say the guidelines, “a product should not be advertised as ‘ozone safe,’ ‘ozone friendly,’ or as not containing CFCs if the product contains any ozone-depleting chemical.” However, manufacturers can make claims about the reduction of a product’s ozone-depletion potential if they are adequately substantiated.

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, Click here.