Sushi Hayakawa received an A, scoring 93 out of 100, in a Fulton County food-service inspection on Aug 5, 2026. The official report lists three findings. [1]
The inspector observed no HAACP or variance for ROP of seafood. [2]
The inspector also observed no documentation for a variance for their ROP process. [3]
A separate finding described multiple food items outside of their original container missing labels with the common name. [4]
Showing 3 of 3 findings
Observed no HAACP or variance for ROP of seafood. CA: Advised PIC to prepare a variance and HAACP plan for their ROP process.
Code 511-6-1.04(6)(j)
Observed no HAACP or variance for ROP of seafood. CA: Advised PIC to prepare a variance and HAACP plan for their ROP process. New Violation. Correct By: 08/15/2026Official report · Item 9-2 ↗
Correct by
Observed no documentation for a variance for their ROP process. CA: Advised PIC to obtain a variance from a requirement of this Chapter is granted by the Department, the information that shall be provided by the person requesting the variance and retained in the Department’s file on the food service establishment includes: 1.
Code 511-6-1.05(b)
Observed no documentation for a variance for their ROP process. CA: Advised PIC to obtain a variance from a requirement of this Chapter is granted by the Department, the information that shall be provided by the person requesting the variance and retained in the Department’s file on the food service establishment includes: 1. A statement of the proposed variance of the Chapter requirement citing relevant rule and subsection numbers; Pf 2. An analysis of the rationale for how the potential public health hazards and nuisances addressed by the relevant rules and subsections will be alternatively addressed by the proposal; Pf and 3. A HACCP plan if required that includes the information specified under DPH Rule 511-6-1-.02 (6) as it is relevant to the variance requested. New Violation. Correct By: 08/15/2026Official report · Item 10C ↗
Correct by
Observed multiple food items outside of their original container missing labels with the common name. CA: Advised PIC to label all food items.
Code 511-6-1.04(7)(c)
Observed multiple food items outside of their original container missing labels with the common name. CA: Advised PIC to label all food items. New Violation. Correct By: 08/15/2026Official report · Item 10D ↗
Correct by
Correction and repeat labels quote the report. An absent label leaves correction status unknown; a deadline does not confirm a correction.
Fulton County · Aug 5, 2026
02 / Same facility ↗Official inspection historyAvailable records for this official facility
03 / How scoring works ↗Georgia’s food-service rulesScores and findings describe the dated inspection, not current operating conditions. A correction deadline does not establish whether an issue remained unresolved afterward.
Findings quote the official report captured . “Corrected on site” and “repeat” reflect explicit report markers. “COS” and “CA” in the inspector’s notes refer to corrections and corrective actions; an instruction to act is not proof that it was completed.
History links the same official facility ID within the issuing authority and may omit intervening inspections. Same-day results have no inferred sequence. Report excerpts follow source order, not a severity ranking.
This report comes from Fulton County. History includes only this authority’s exact facility ID.
Checked