Comments on RBS Pending Regulation
Comments received during the week of September 30, 2019.
Comment #72
From Renae Perry, Papapietro Perry Winery
These new rules could result in ruining our business. They are onerous and far to much to achieve the goal of reducing drunk driving. Please allow more time for this to be studied and to come up with reasonable rules that will not leave us with no employees.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #73
From Louie Cano, CANO Liquor License Consulting
How does one go about becoming an accredited trainer? Whom should we contact at ABC?
Your insight is appreciated
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #74
From Barbara Snider, Hinman & Carmichael LLp
Pursuant to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s September 24, 2019 Notice, attached are Hinman & Carmichael’s RBS Supplemental Comments and Proposed RBS Regulations. We look forward to working with the Department on finalizing the RBS Regulations and participating in the discussion at tomorrow’s Public Hearing.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #75
From Tim Schmelzer, Wine Institute
Attached are the Wine Institute’s comments regarding the proposed regulations to implement the Responsible Beverage Service Training Program Act of 2017.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #76
From Karen Mueller
As a stakeholder, winery owner, operator, Napa Valley, i would like to add to my previous comments concerning the newly considered RBSTPA regulatory actions.
Firstly, while I appreciate the ABC extending the deadline for comments, the explanation given for the short comment time is not based on reality from a stakeholders side of the issue. Although ABC has been considering these changes for quite some time, and you have notified the stakeholder ORGANIZATIONS of these possible changes, certainly you can understand how this is not sufficient notice; notifying large organizations is not the same as notifying individual stakeholders, and although some stakeholders did know that ABC was considering changes to regulations concerning this issue, the details of the changes have just very recently been made available to us.
Many of us in the wine industry have been addressing the issue of how to serve customers safely, for years. I took ABC training years ago myself, and we have had our servers trained as well. This is an issue that we take very seriously. The ABC’s new regulations are going to be a huge overreach, which will not address the issue in a useful manner. It will also be punitive and prohibitively expensive. The proposal creates another new bureaucracy, to add to the already extensive list of government oversight bureaucracies we deal with, and treats all stakeholders the same. It will cause wide spread unemployment; the requirement to pass an academic level class by 70% or higher is out of reach for many. The expense will be huge: i’ve already had solicitations for companies that want to “help” us meet the new regulations (for huge fees).
I urge you, please, please, reconsider these changes. They will be especially burdensome for those of us who are small businesses, small family wineries, mom and pop stores, and so on, who are already stretched to the limit. Surely we can do better in addressing these issues, together.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #77
From Steve Teshara, Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce
On behalf of our Board of Directors and more than 550 members, I am writing to convey our organization’s strong support for the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions to the proposed regulations currently drafted for the Responsible Beverage Service Training Program (RBSTP).
We respectfully request that copies of this email submitted in support for the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions be provided to each member of the ABC Board and be made part of the record of testimony at your scheduled October 11, 2019 public hearing.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #78
From Sean Hamlin, California Craft Brewers Association
Please find the CCBA’s comments regarding the proposed regulations for implementation of the Responsible Beverage Service Training program.
If you have any further questions or comments for the Association please do not hesitate to contact us.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #79
From Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, Alcohol Justice
Attached, please find the comments from Alcohol Justice on the proposed rulemaking for responsible beverage service training. Thank you for your hard work on this matter.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #80
From Christina Borbely, Santa Cruz County’s Community Prevention Partners Coalition
Community Prevention Partners is a multi-sector coalition in Santa Cruz County, dedicated to building a diverse community that promotes health and well-being, and enhances youth and community safety through sustainable alcohol and drug prevention efforts. Through our research and education on best practices in preventing underage drinking and alcohol-related harms, our local jurisdictions have mandated Responsible Alcohol Beverage Service Training, and we are pleased that this requirement will now be universal in California under AB1221 to help curb harm related to underage drinking and the overuse of alcohol in California communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the proposed legislation.
Comment 1
In order to make access to the RBS training the most equitable and effective, we understand that both on-line and in-person training are needed. We strongly encourage in-person training, when possible, so that servers receive individualized support and training on specific challenging scenarios. In-person trainings are an opportunity to troubleshoot and get proper guidance on specific difficult situations that the alcohol service industry encounters, allows for peer supported learning, and is more engaging and interactive. We encourage ABC to strongly support local jurisdictions to continue to offer in person training through the accredited providers, to enhance the impact of server training.
Comment 2
ABC on Premises licensees.
Allow local law enforcement jurisdictions access to the database to be able to include adherence to the policy as a part of regular local compliance checks.
Comment 3
Section: Alcohol servers
Comment: Completion of an alcohol server certification prior to being employed by an ABC on-premises licensee is an excellent recommendation.
Comment 4
We echo another commenter’s recommendation that owners go through the RBS training as well in order that they are properly prepared to answer questions, create strong internal policies, and support their employees.
Comment 5
Section 166. Curriculum Requirements. (m)
Comment: Expand curriculum on impacts and identification of polysubstance intoxication with cannabis, and interaction with alcohol.
Thank you for crafting this bill and collecting and integrating public input. The State has a unique opportunity to incorporate public health into the rules to make this regulation impactful and effective in reducing the community consequences of alcohol, improving business practices of licensees, and enhancing community wellbeing.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #81
From H. Alan Rosenberg, Republic National Distributing Company
Please find my correspondence containing RNDC’s/YMC’s comments to the proposed implementation rules prepared by the CA Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control with respect to The Responsible Beverage Service Training Act of 2017.
I am happy to discuss any further questions you might have.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #82
From Vlad
Your agency has a point, that people serving alcohol should be more educated on the topic. My staff is all LEAD and TIPS certified. there is no reason why that is not enough. but if you are going to change the rules, then it should be for new licensees only and not those grandfathered in. in any case, I fully Support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions! And as a holder of 2 liquor licenses, I believe these revisions are in the best interest of the ABC, the Public and the License holders.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #83
From Mary Jane Saunders, Beer Institute
Please find attached comments from the Beer Institute on the proposed RBSTP regulations.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #84
From Bill Frick, Frick Winery
Don’t take on a bad law and make it worse.
I urge you not to implement this as planned. It is restrictive, long, complex and complicated.
What you are doing is an onerous invasion of personal privacy and freedom. It disproportionately effects our low income population. It is racist, elitist, classist and anti-worker.
More beauracracy and laws in an environment already burdening workers and small business is a disservice.
This greatly impacts small business that is already on the edge of extinction because of demands that are not sustainable for a mom and pop to physically or financially comply. We don’t have staff or departments devoted to issues like this. Our margins for making a living are already small. Everyone hears about the number of small business failures.
Our culture is enriched by the hospitality and creativity of small business and this should be supported. Maybe government does not care anymore and is happier with the efficiency of taxing and regulating corporate and big box business?
This is government intrusion at its worst. Most small business owners are responsible and conscientious. Their business is much more personal than it is for a corporate executive. Many small wineries have people come help a day a year for a special event. Or part timers a weekend a month. How can one expect these people to take the time, energy and expense to get a license. This will force some folks to be criminals in order to have a job and for others hardships in running their small business to survive.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #85
From Phil Chen, Hitplay.com
I’m writing to show my support of Hinman & Carmichael LLP’s comments and revisions.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #86
From Tracy Dorin
The new regulation would cause unnecessary hardship to every alcohol – related business & would be yet another challenge to small business owners just trying to survive.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #87
From Ryan Fitzgerald
I Support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions to the responsible beverage service act.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #88
From Benny Bleiman, Tonic Nightlife Group
On behalf of 350 individual bar owners in San Francisco, the San Francisco Bar Owner Alliance, and the thousands of members of the California Music & Culture Association, I am writing today to respectfully express my shock and disappointment with the proposed “registry” for anyone serving alcohol in the state of California put forth as part of the 2017 Responsible Beverage Service Training Act.
Simply put, this proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Putting together a massive bureaucratic database and forcing hard working industry workers to endure an onerous and arbitrary training and testing regimen – simply so they can serve a product that they have been responsibly serving for over a century in our state – baffles the mind. Small businesses in the state are already strained to the breaking point, and this unnecessary new bureaucratic nightmare would serve only to hurt them even more. Not to mention it calls up serious questions about civil liberties (a database of California residents? What about people in the service industry concerned about ICE?) and basic implementation fairness (Why is the training only being offered in English/Spanish? What about Mandarin, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Tagalog, Indonesian, Japanese, Yemeni, Arabic, Thai, etc.). Furthermore, the state already offers free online LEADS training which already solves the basic issues this proposal purports to address.
The law offices of Hinman & Carmichael eloquently state the myriad Issues this proposal brings up in their blog post.
I am asking you to support the revisions to your proposal as recommended by Hinman & Carmichael LLP.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #89
From Jeremy Raymer
I am writing in protest!
PLEASE HELP NOW!!!!!!
The ABC has proposed unreasonable regulations that set up a state-wide agency (akin to the DMV) and will require all servers of alcohol to take a “course” and “pass” a test OR you are out of a job.
AND you have to be listed in a state database!
This is a major invasion of privacy!
The course defines all alcohol use as dangerous and unhealthy, that requires all servers to take a pass a college-level test with 70% grade!
RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE ACT HEARING – OCTOBER 11TH IN SACRAMENTO – BE THERE!
John Hinman’s office has revised the rules making them less impossible and onerous BUT without your support for these revisions, the ABC will adopt the version driven by the anti-alcohol forces. WE CAN”T LET THAT HAPPEN!
“Support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions”
This will help establish the record for a later lawsuit should the ABC not listen.
Thank you and I hope you will please consider.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #90
From Jeremy
I am writing in protest!
PLEASE HELP NOW!!!!!!
The ABC has proposed unreasonable regulations that set up a state-wide agency (akin to the DMV) and will require all servers of alcohol to take a “course” and “pass” a test OR you are out of a job.
AND you have to be listed in a state database!
This is a major invasion of privacy!
The course defines all alcohol use as dangerous and unhealthy, that requires all servers to take a pass a college-level test with 70% grade!
RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE ACT HEARING – OCTOBER 11TH IN SACRAMENTO – BE THERE!
John Hinman’s office has revised the rules making them less impossible and onerous BUT without your support for these revisions, the ABC will adopt the version driven by the anti-alcohol forces. WE CAN”T LET THAT HAPPEN!
“Support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions”
This will help establish the record for a later lawsuit should the ABC not listen.
Thank you and I hope you will please consider.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #91
From Joseph Carouba
My concerns about your proposed new regulations
- The proposal creates a new state bureaucracy (one that will rival the DMV for cost, size and complexity) where every alcohol server in the state must submit personal information to a state data base where the privacy protections are unclear. The alternatives of the certificate information being maintained by either the individual licensee or his/her employer were rejected. Our proposed regulations do away with the state-mandated data base and instead require the records to be kept by the accredited training agencies, the individual employer and the individual.
- The current course requirements expand five general subjects listed in the legislature’s Act to require actual detailed course content for each subject – – freezing in place service practices recommended by anti-alcohol advocacy groups and making the content the regulation regardless of future developments. This was not the intent of the RBS bill. Our proposed regulations simplify the course requirements and return them to what the legislature mandated.
- For example, the proposed training requirements related to the effects of alcohol and how the body metabolizes alcohol go far beyond what is necessary for servers to know to observe intoxication, makes not only the content of the course difficult, but also makes passing the exam more difficult than it need be, jeopardizing the employment and livelihood of millions of people in this state who serve alcohol – including winery, brewery and distillery personnel, event and catering personnel and every bartender, waiter and waitress in the state. How many thousands of people must be terminated from their employment for the business to keep its alcoholic beverage license?
- The ID checking will establish as state law procedures for determining when Section 25660 (reliance upon bona fide proof of identification) may be relied upon. This affects every clerk, checker and other person in the state who sells alcoholic beverages, not just servers. Now all ID’s must be pulled out of wallets, manually examined for flaws and compared to exemplar data bases. If that is not done, the ID cannot be relied upon. Every person in a group where one person purchases alcohol will also have to be carded; upon pain of the business losing its right to sell alcohol. If this is to be the law in California it deserves to be discussed. We deleted this requirement and left it to current law.
- The new Training program regulation will require servers to now also detect legal or illegal drug use. This creates a whole new area of liability for servers and employers not anticipated in the Legislature’s Act; and not part of the authorizing legislation. We modified this requirement to require “reasonable” belief that the patron is incapacitated.
Conclusion
This law is a major positive step forward in encouraging training of alcohol servers in California. These regulations will affect not only every restaurant, night club, hotel, tourist park, stadium and business in the state that offers hospitality but every winery, brewery and distillery with a tasting room, and every event held in this state in any location that involves the service of alcohol.
However, the implementing rules must be considerably shortened, the paperwork burden put on the training providers and licensees rather than on the state and the instructional program left to private industry (subject to the reasonable approval of the Department) rather than dictated in unnecessarily detailed and inflexible ABC regulations that cannot be easily changed as new information and scientific developments update our understanding of the science of alcohol consumption.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #92
From Kat Bret
Please support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions. I really do not wish to be in a data base as I believe this is a gross invasion of privacy.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #93
From Matt Sutton, California Restaurant Association
Please find the attached comment letter from the California Restaurant Association and National Restaurant Association concerning the proposed regulations for the Responsible Beverage Service Training Program Act of 2017.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RBSTPComments@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.
Comment #94
From Karen Robinson-Stark
Hello. I have concerns about these proposed regulations. As a private citizen I object strenuously to the requirement that I show identification every time I purchase alcoholic beverages. I am more than 55 years old. I resent the intrusion on my privacy that this regulation will require. That my obvious age is not sufficient evidence that I am of legal drinking age is insulting and a mockery of my age. It is invasive in the extreme, allowing any number of persons to have access to very personal information about me for no plausible reason. Someone in a role to sell alcohol who is incapable of making a distinction between someone not yet 21 and someone over 55 is incompetent Common sense is abandoned if this aspect of the regulations is allowed to go forward. I urge the department to reconsider this regulation that is demonstrably an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #95
From Tony
Seriously???
We support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP revision. NO way are we gonna support the proposed bill.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #96
From Cory Hunt
Our concerns include:
- The proposal creates a new state bureaucracy (one that will rival the DMV for cost, size and complexity) where every alcohol server in the state must submit personal information to a state data base where the privacy protections are unclear. The alternatives of the certificate information being maintained by either the individual licensee or his/her employer were rejected. Our proposed regulations do away with the state-mandated data base and instead require the records to be kept by the accredited training agencies, the individual employer and the individual.
- The current course requirements expand five general subjects listed in the legislature’s Act to require actual detailed course content for each subject – – freezing in place service practices recommended by anti-alcohol advocacy groups and making the content the regulation regardless of future developments. This was not the intent of the RBS bill. Our proposed regulations simplify the course requirements and return them to what the legislature mandated.
- For example, the proposed training requirements related to the effects of alcohol and how the body metabolizes alcohol go far beyond what is necessary for servers to know to observe intoxication, makes not only the content of the course difficult, but also makes passing the exam more difficult than it need be, jeopardizing the employment and livelihood of millions of people in this state who serve alcohol – including winery, brewery and distillery personnel, event and catering personnel and every bartender, waiter and waitress in the state. How many thousands of people must be terminated from their employment for the business to keep its alcoholic beverage license?
- The ID checking will establish as state law procedures for determining when Section 25660 (reliance upon bona fide proof of identification) may be relied upon. This affects every clerk, checker and other person in the state who sells alcoholic beverages, not just servers. Now all ID’s must be pulled out of wallets, manually examined for flaws and compared to exemplar data bases. If that is not done, the ID cannot be relied upon. Every person in a group where one person purchases alcohol will also have to be carded; upon pain of the business losing its right to sell alcohol. If this is to be the law in California it deserves to be discussed. We deleted this requirement and left it to current law.
- The new Training program regulation will require servers to now also detect legal or illegal drug use. This creates a whole new area of liability for servers and employers not anticipated in the Legislature’s Act; and not part of the authorizing legislation. We modified this requirement to require “reasonable” belief that the patron is incapacitated.
Conclusion
Don’t get us wrong. As we said in the last post on this subject, this law is a major positive step forward in encouraging training of alcohol servers in California. These regulations will affect not only every restaurant, night club, hotel, tourist park, stadium and business in the state that offers hospitality but every winery, brewery and distillery with a tasting room, and every event held in this state in any location that involves the service of alcohol.
However, the implementing rules must be considerably shortened, the paperwork burden put on the training providers and licensees rather than on the state and the instructional program left to private industry (subject to the reasonable approval of the Department) rather than dictated in unnecessarily detailed and inflexible ABC regulations that cannot be easily changed as new information and scientific developments update our understanding of the science of alcohol consumption.
We are looking forward to the public hearing on Friday, and a robust discussion that flushes out the issues and creates a framework for resolution in the spirit of the original bill. These regulations are simply too important to be pushed through without taking the time to carefully consider all the facets of the proposed new standards of conduct and the effect of the new regulations on the millions of servers in this state.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #97
From Anonymous
New rules for servers are a terrible idea. Not only does it put a huge financial burden on everyday people just trying to pay rent, it puts servers in unsafe situations checking if a customer is high
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #98
From MM
To whom it may concern.
We have read through the “Responsible Beverage service act “
Finding it very flawed we strongly support the Hinman & Carmichael LLP comments and revisions.
Thank you
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #99
From Larry Metzger
I oppose these new changes.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #100
From Lisa Maria Delgadillo
I am a small business owner in San Francisco and hold a liquor license. I am hearing at the 11th hour about ABC proposed changes that significantly effect my business. The ABC has every means to keep me updated regarding proposals that will effect my livelihood but chooses not to share such information with stakeholders such as myself. This is unfair and immoral. As a small business owner in San Francisco, a very difficult market to continue to exist, additional hurdles are onerous especially when given no opportunity to engage in the conversation. I would very much like to be involved in the conversation as I feel openness and dialogue could best inform and lead to best practices for all interested parties.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
Comment #101
From Karen Robinson-Stark, Stark Spirits
My husband and I are manufacturers of distilled spirits, operating with a Type 74 license. We have a concern about the various off-site events where tastings are done. We do tastings at non-profit organization events, retail stores and industry events several times a year. It is the primary marketing opportunity for our small distillery. Will the regulations as proposed require each person who comes to our table for tasting our products need to present their driver’s license or other age identification document to us? Will the regulation requires that the person will need to repeat this process at each table where they request a taste of an alcoholic beverage? In order to attend any of the non-profit or industry events that feature alcoholic beverage tasting, the attendees provide proof of age at the entrance to the event and receive a wrist band that assures us that they are of drinking age. Will this single proof of age process still be permitted by these regulations? At the retail stores customers are required to present age identification if they appear under 30. Often this takes place in clear view of our location in the store’s tasting area. Do the regulations require asking the person again to provide identification when they come to the tasting area when we already have reliable indication that they are of drinking age?
If the regulations will require that individuals provide proof of age multiple times within the same venue every time the location of service changes, I believe the reaction of the public will be negative in the extreme. Consequently, the fundraising done by non-profit organizations and trade industries will be greatly affected by the public’s outrage. The opportunity to market our products at retail venues will be similarly affected. In consequence small craft distilleries will be at an even greater disadvantage than we already are relative to the marketing ability of widely known large scale distilleries. It will have a seriously undermining effect on the viability of craft distilling as an industry.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
ABC Response
Comments will be addressed at the end of the extended comment period.
TRACE
Law Enforcement Reporting
LEAD
Off-Sale Licensee Training
Google Translate