Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists rule relating to schedule of fees
Summary
Senate Bill 377 authorizes a legislative rule for the West Virginia Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists concerning its schedule of fees. The bill amends the section of code that approves miscellaneous agency rules and specifically gives effect to the board’s filed rule, which was submitted to the State Register, modified in response to objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, and refiled for authorization.
In practical terms, the bill does not create a new regulatory program; instead, it allows the board’s fee schedule rule, 3 CSR 06, to take effect under state law. The measure is limited to rule approval and affects the Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists, licensees, applicants, and other regulated parties who pay fees for barbering and cosmetology licensure or related services.
Impact
SB 377 updates West Virginia Code §64-9-1 to authorize a specific legislative rule of the Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists. Its legal effect is to validate the board’s schedule-of-fees rule and allow the agency to collect fees under the approved regulatory framework. The bill primarily affects the board’s administrative authority and the costs borne by barbers, cosmetologists, and other licensees or applicants subject to the fee schedule.
Sentiment
The available context suggests a routine, procedural measure rather than a controversial policy change. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no evidence of strong support or opposition in the materials. The bill appears to have been treated as a standard rule authorization item following review and modification by the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the fee schedule itself, since agency rules setting or changing fees can affect license holders and applicants. Any objections would likely center on the amount of fees, the scope of the board’s authority, or whether the rule adequately addressed concerns raised by the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. However, the provided materials do not identify specific opponents, supporters, or disputed provisions beyond the rule authorization process.