2016 Legislation

Eliminate manager license requirement.

The Board of Cosmetology generally requires professionals who hold a cosmetology license to also obtain a manager license before they can deliver a beauty-related service while working alone in a salon. It is an outdated requirement that unnecessarily impedes a licensee’s ability to work, and a private employer/salon owner’s ability to run a salon. Moreover, the manager license requirements vary widely depending on what underlying license they accompany. And yet, the exams for all of these types of manager licenses are taken from the same text book.  (changes found throughout 4713, but specifically in 4713.01, 4713.25, 4713.30, 4713.35, 4713.41)

Replacing the managing license to an advanced license.

Once an individual has his or her initial licensure experience, training and reputation very quickly become the keys to a successful career in the beauty industry. In traditional salons, where beauty professionals are employees, those years of experience, training and reputation provide salon owners a basis for promotions and management opportunities within the company. The manager license mandate goes against these principles and doesn’t permit traditional salon owners to run their own businesses. It artificially provides individuals with little or no experience a leg up on those with years or decades more experience, training or reputation.While we do not believe there is value in maintaining the current manager licensure mandate, we do believe there is merit in an elective master licensure so long as the requirements are developed with the input of salon owners and it replaces the current manager license. A properly developed masters license  with a grandfathering clause for current manager licensees will provide existing manager licensees a comparable licensure and has the potential to provide better trained individuals in the industry for the future (changes found in Sec. 4713.25 and 4713.30)

NOTE:  Required Hours per License Different Though Test Is the Same – The managing license hourly requirements, ranging from 100 – 300 hours to prepare for the same test, are clearly arbitrary. The inconsistency in these hourly requirements resulted from an outdated system, and patchwork solutions without a corresponding industry problem. A suggestion to eliminate confusion and this discrepancy between on license or another achieving a master’s license would be to reduce all hours to no more than 150 hours (minimum number that works currently).

License Basic License Hours Additional Manager Hours Total of Basic and Manager Hours Ohio Revised Code Section
Cosmetology 1500 300 1800 § 4713.30(F)(2)
Hair Designer 1200 244 1444 § 4713.30(G)(2)
Esthetician 600 150 750 § 4713.30(H)(2)
Natural Hair Stylist 450 150 600 § 4713.30(I)(2)
Manicurist 200 100 300 § 4713.30(J)(2)
Braider* 150 150 300 *
Threaders* 150 150 300 *

Apprenticeship.

The OSA supports the idea of a six month apprenticeship requirement prior to an individual practicing alone in a salon in order to ensure all newly licensed individuals know how to properly respond to many safety or sanitization situations. This should be part of the Board’s annual curriculum discussion regarding training and education standards for initial licensure and the master’s license. This requirement would not apply to independent contractors or instructors.

Biennial and complaint-driven inspections.

The OSA believes the inspection practices of the Board of Cosmetology should be in response to complaints filed by consumers and every salon should be inspected every two years instead of annually. This allows the time and energy of inspectors to be focused on true threats to the safe and sanitary delivery of services, rather than technical violations. In order to help facilitate complaint driven inspections the Board will provide a toll-free number and online service to receive complaints alleging violations of the law. In addition, each salon licensed in Ohio will be required to post a notice with the toll-free number and online service for reporting alleged violations for all customers  (changes in §4713.06, 4713.07(A)(2) and (7), 4713.41(E) and (F)). Note that independent contractor salons (“a salon within a salon”) and those licensees must be part of the inspector database to insure that each of those licensees is also subjected to inspections every two years.

Photo Identification

This OSA proposal would require a holder of a practicing license, instructor license or independent contractor license issued by the state board of cosmetology to maintain the license and a state of Ohio issued photo identification to be produced upon inspection or request (§4713.56). This provision allows a licensee who practices at more than one location to easily provide services at alternate locations and easily prove that he or she has a license. Currently, the law requires that the actual license be posted at the work location, which is problematic because it requires a licensee to essentially carry a wall plaque to each location where he or she provides services even though the license status is easily obtained through the state’s on-line licensing database. (§4713.56)

Penalties for violations.

This OSA proposal places would place the focus of salon inspection on safety and sanitation, while allowing other categories to be dealt with accordingly.  The fine language proposed by OSA mirrors what the Board is actually doing now, but with a lower penalty structure. Under the current law, the first fine is $500, and then any additional violations incur $100 each for the first inspection where the violations are noted. OSA would reduce the fine to $250 for the first offense, but kept the $100 for further violations on the same visit. (§4713.64)

Human trafficking.

The OSA strongly supports aggressive, yet reasonable measures to intercept and halt human trafficking in beauty-related businesses.

Sharing the staff of the Board of Cosmetology.

The OSA believes the State of Ohio should find ways to better leverage the strong staff at the Board of Cosmetology and examine whether those at the Board who conduct inspections, registration and testing can do so for similar agencies. (Proposed §4713.072 creating the Commission on Efficient Regulation of Beauty Services)

Sharing the staff of the Board of Cosmetology.

The OSA believes the State of Ohio should find ways to better leverage the strong staff at the Board of Cosmetology and examine whether those at the Board who conduct inspections, registration and testing can do so for similar agencies. (Proposed §4713.072 creating the Commission on Efficient Regulation of Beauty Services)

Provide barbering technique education and subsequently regulate barber activities at salons.

Because the clientele that salons serve increasingly includes men, licensed cosmetologists are performing procedures, such as clipper cuts that have been traditionally performed by barbers. However, these procedures are not part of the pre-licensing cosmetology curriculum. As a result, many cosmetologists have not been trained on how to safely use and maintain equipment used for barber-related procedures. (Proposed §4713.072 creating Commission on Efficient Regulation of Beauty Services)

Modernize subjects and course work taught in schools of cosmetology.

Requires public and private schools of cosmetology to annually review subjects and course work required to receive an initial cosmetology license and advanced license and, in doing so, shall incorporate standards adopted by the State Board of Cosmetology.

Limit pre-licensing testing to safe and sanitary practices.

Testing conducted by the Board of Cosmetology should assess the ability of a prospective beauty professional to maintain a safe and sanitary place of service delivery and should not assess aesthetic talent. The private sector will adequately reward those who are talented.

Testing for school instructors.

It seems that every role in cosmetology is tested except for instructors. We believe that there should be a discussion about what sort of pre-licensing testing should be done for those who teach cosmetology students.

Meaningful continuing education requirements.

Cosmetologists are required to obtain 8 hours of continuing education in a 24-month period. We hope to establish categories of educational competencies within those 8 hours to ensure that safety and sanitation, as well as law and rule updates, are at the forefront of the continuing education requirements.

Licensed Public school students allowed to practice in school clinics up to graduation

Our bill would correct a provision in state law today that prevents a public school student, who has earned licensure in a branch of cosmetology, to continue practicing in their school clinic until graduation for free in order to be better prepared to enter the job market.  This allowance would terminate upon the graduation of the student from the public school.

Boutique services registration

These provisions would require registration for individuals practicing braiding, threading, eye lash extensions and other boutique services as identified by the Ohio State Board of Cosmetology.  This would provide the least restrictive regulatory means for a service provider as well as ensuring the state’s desire to protect Ohioans receiving such services.  In addition, the registration and minimum training requirements as opposed to the state government imposing burdensome licensure and formal education requirements should protect the state from litigious special interest groups fighting to reduce regulatory burdens in other states.