SB 1363 amends Business and Professions Code section 7348 to make an establishment’s obligation to be “in charge” by a licensed practitioner apply only during the hours when barbering, cosmetology, electrology, esthetics, hairstyling, or manicuring services are being performed. The amendment also enumerates the license categories that qualify (barber, cosmetologist, electrologist, esthetician, hairstylist, manicurist) in the statutory text.
Practically, the change shifts the supervisory duty from an always-on requirement to a time-limited duty tied to active service delivery and removes the statute’s previous phrasing that exempted apprentices from the category of licensed persons. The revision raises immediate questions about how “services are being performed” will be interpreted, what activities happen outside of that window (prep, cleanup, retail sales, training), and how enforcement and liability will adapt.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1363 revises Bus. & Prof. Code §7348 so an establishment must be “in charge” by a person licensed in specified cosmetology trades only while those services are actually being performed. The amendment replaces the general, continuous supervision mandate with a service-hour trigger and lists the qualifying license types in the statute.
Who It Affects
Professional salons, barbershops, and similar establishments licensed by the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology; licensed practitioners (barbers, cosmetologists, electrologists, estheticians, hairstylists, manicurists); apprentices and their trainers; and the Board that enforces licensing standards.
Why It Matters
The bill reduces a continuous supervision obligation to a narrower, service-driven duty, which changes compliance planning, staffing, and potential enforcement outcomes. That change alters liability exposure windows and could require new interpretive guidance from the Board to avoid uneven enforcement and safety gaps.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1363 edits one sentence of the Barbering and Cosmetology Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §7348).
Under current law, an establishment must at all times be in the charge of a person licensed under the chapter, with an exception for apprentices. The bill replaces that blanket, always-on requirement with a rule that the establishment must be in charge of a person licensed in a listed cosmetology category "at all times during which" barbering, cosmetology, electrology, esthetics, hairstyling services, or manicuring are being performed.
The change narrows the temporal scope of supervisory duty to periods when services occur and explicitly names the license categories that qualify.
Although short, the amendment has outsized operational implications. Establishment owners will need to determine when the supervision duty begins and ends: does it cover client intake, prep, sanitation before or after an appointment, walk-in retail sales, or unsupervised equipment maintenance?
The statute does not define "being performed," so those borderline activities will likely fall to administrative interpretation, guidance, or later disciplinary decisions. Employers should expect to revise schedules and written supervision policies to align with the new trigger while watching for Board-issued clarifications.The amendment also removes the statutory text that previously identified apprentices as an exception to the supervision requirement; because apprentices are not licensed, the new text's silence about apprentices creates interpretive risk.
Supervisory responsibility may now be framed strictly around licensed categories, which could leave apprentices and clients in ambiguous positions unless the Board or courts clarify how apprentices fit into the supervision scheme. Finally, the statutory language introduces a drafting oddity—an insertion of the word "establishment" among the listed licensed roles—that could itself become a point of dispute over whether the Legislature intended to expand, limit, or simply restate prior practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1363 amends Business and Professions Code §7348, replacing the prior continuous supervision requirement with a duty tied to times when specified services are "being performed.", The bill explicitly lists qualifying license types in the statute: barber, cosmetologist, electrologist, esthetician, hairstylist, and manicurist.
The prior statutory phrase that exempted apprentices from the supervision requirement is removed from the revised text, leaving the apprentice status unaddressed in the new sentence.
The amendment applies only to the timing and scope of who must be "in charge" at an establishment; it does not change licensing thresholds, scope-of-practice definitions, or directly alter enforcement penalties in the text provided.
The statutory draft inserts the word "establishment" within the list of qualifying roles, generating a textual ambiguity about whether the term was intended to do substantive work or was a drafting error.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Switches from continuous supervision to a service-tied supervision trigger
This provision replaces the prior rule that an establishment must "at all times" be under the charge of a person licensed under the chapter with a narrower trigger: the supervision duty applies "at all times during which" listed services are being performed. For compliance officers, this changes recordkeeping and staffing calculations: you no longer need to show a licensed person was in charge 24/7, only during active service windows—subject to whatever the Board later defines as a service window.
Enumerates which licenses satisfy the supervision requirement
The amendment names the specific license categories that qualify to be "in charge": barber, cosmetologist, electrologist, esthetician, hairstylist, and manicurist. That narrows ambiguity about which credential counts as adequate supervision, but it also excludes any categories not mentioned—so hybrid or newly created credential types would require interpretation or future amendment to qualify.
Silence on apprentices replaces the prior explicit exception
Previously the statute explicitly stated the supervision requirement did not apply to apprentices. The new text omits that exception and instead anchors supervision to licensed categories. That creates two practical questions: whether apprentices are treated as requiring supervision because they are not licensed, and whether the omission was intentional. The Board will likely need to issue guidance to avoid uneven enforcement and protect apprentices and consumers.
Textual oddity raises interpretive questions
The inserted phrase includes the word "establishment" among license categories, producing a grammatically and substantively awkward clause. Regulators, lawyers, and courts may have to resolve whether that wording was intended to do anything substantive (for example, to allow an establishment's designated manager to count) or whether it was a drafting error with no legal effect.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Salon and barbershop owners: They gain scheduling flexibility because the statutory supervision duty no longer extends to periods without active services, potentially lowering labor costs for managers during non-service hours.
- Establishments with thin staffing models: Businesses that rely on a single licensed practitioner during peak hours can avoid the need to roster additional licensed staff during quiet periods, easing compliance burdens tied to continuous supervision.
- State Board enforcement planning: The Board can focus inspections and disciplinary resources on active service contexts rather than enforcing a continuous, 24/7 supervisory rule, if it interprets the amendment narrowly.
Who Bears the Cost
- Apprentices and trainees: The removal of the explicit apprentice exception creates ambiguity about their supervision and protection when performing services, increasing the risk of inconsistent protections unless clarified.
- Licensed practitioners (on-duty supervisors): Practitioners who serve as the required "in charge" person may face compressed windows of exposure and potential liability concentrated during service hours, and might need to document supervision more precisely.
- The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology: The agency will likely bear rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement costs to interpret terms like "being performed" and resolve the drafting oddity, producing administrative burden without additional legislative funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades a clear, continuous safety standard for operational flexibility: it reduces owners' staffing burdens and narrows the Board's constant oversight, but it also creates interpretive gaps that could weaken apprentice protections and leave safety-critical moments unregulated unless the Board or courts step in with definitions and limits.
The amendment is short but consequential because it shifts the legal trigger for supervision from an omnipresent standard to a temporal, activity-based one. That pivot transfers a great deal of interpretive work to the Board and to courts: what counts as "performing" a service, and when does the duty to be "in charge" start and stop?
Common salon activities—prepping clients, sanitation, intake, retail transactions, training, and equipment maintenance—may fall in a grey area. If enforcement treats those activities as within the service window, the practical change will be minimal; if it treats them as outside the window, establishments may operate unsupervised during potentially risky moments.
The deleted apprentice exception creates a second set of uncertainties. Apprentices are not licensed, so anchoring supervision to licensed categories could be read two ways: apprentices remain implicitly excluded (because they lack licensure) or they now require a licensed person to be "in charge" whenever they perform services.
That ambiguity affects training workflows and liability for both apprentices and salons. Finally, the insertion of the word "establishment" inside the license list looks like a drafting mistake; resolving whether that term has legal effect will be necessary to avoid uneven compliance expectations and litigation over statutory interpretation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.