Use of brush rollers brought into a cosmetology shop or school by a patrol to be used solely and exclusively upon the head of such patron is not prohibited.

COSMETOLOGY BOARD: BOARD OF COSMETOIIJGY: Use of brush rollers brought into a co8metology shop or school by a patron to be used solely and exclusively upon the head of such patron is not pro- hibited. OPINION NO. l2 ( 1 1 9 9 6 6 5) OPINION NO. 304 ( 4) February 4, 1965 F \LED Honorable Carroll M. Blackwell Prosecuting Attorney Callaway County Fulton, Missouri Dear Mr. Blackwel1: /2 The request for an opinion by your predecessor in office poses a question concerning the regulation of the State Board of Cosmetology prohibiting the use of brush rollers in shops and schools of cosmetology. The question reads as followst 11I would like to know whether, 1n view of this regu~ation, a woman may purchase her own brush rollers, take them to a beauty shop, have them used upon her hair, and take them home, repeating this process from time to time, the rollers being used by nobody but her or upon her." The regulation referred to was filed by the State Board of Cosmetology on June 2, 1964, and went into effect on June 12, 1964. It reads as follows: "The use of brush rollers and brush curlers is prohibited in shops and schools of cos- metology." This r egulation was adopted shortly after an opinion of this office concluded that brush rollers could be prohibited if it were impracticable to keep them sanitary. The reasoning given in such Opin.ion of the Attorney General, No. 58, May 15, 1964 (which is enclosed), at page 5, is as fol- lows: "Under Section 329.210, RSMo, the board has the power to issue such reasonable sanitary rules as it deems necessary. If it is Honorable Carroll M. Blackwell -2- impracticable to use brush curlers in a sanitary manner, then a regulation prohibiting their use would be authorized by this sec- tion as promoting sanitation. On the other handt if it were practicable to use such brush curlers in a. sanita~ manner, then a regulation prohibiting ~eir use woU!a be '\Ulreasonab!e since it would be outlaWing • the use of an .article not inherently un- sanitary and woUld be 1ritr1n,1ng on ~rop ­ erty rights unnecessarily. f suche the case, a regulation requiring brush curlers to be kept in a l!a.ni tary condition would be reasonable and serve the l!ame end as prohi- bition. 11 (Emphasis l!Upplied.) Since this is a rule relating to health and sanitation, it must necessarily be designed to promote sanitation and be r easonable. It is obvious that the purpose of the rule i s to prevent spreading contagious and infectious diseases through t he use of the same brush rollers on more than one customer. The use of brush rollers by an operator that were brought by the patron to be used solely and exclusively on the head of the one who brought them is not within the purview of the rul e. Brush rol lers used in such manner would not spread contagious or infecti ous diseases since they are used only on the patron who brought them into the school or shop. Administrative rules~ like statutes are presumed to be r easonable. Warning v. i~ompson~ Mo., 249 s.w. 2d 335. To interpret the rule to include brush r ollers brought in the shop by a patron to be used solely and exclusively on that patron''s head would be to give the rule an unreasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rule should not be interpreted to give such a r esult. The use of brush rollers in such manner is not prohib- ited. CONGLUSION Therefore, it i s the opinion of this office, that the use of brush rollers brought into a cosmetology shop or school by a pa.tron to be used solely and exclusively upon the head of such patron is not prohibited. The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by my Assistant, Jeremiah D. Finnegan. Very truly yours,