Committee considers broad cosmetology reform including advanced‑aesthetics license, apprenticeships and nursing‑home exemptions (House Bill 11 26)

The Workforce Development Committee heard lengthy testimony on House Bill 11 26, a comprehensive revision of North Dakota’s cosmetology practice laws that would create a new advanced‑esthetician license, authorize direct‑entry apprenticeships, clarify inspection rules and change licensing exemptions for long‑term care facilities.

Holly Bloomquist, executive director of the State Board of Cosmetology, introduced the bill and proposed several technical amendments, including language to allow the board to adopt rules for the scope of advanced esthetician practice and to add “basic care facilities” where the bill currently references nursing homes. Bloomquist said the board seeks to modernize terminology, reduce barriers to entry, and allow expedited endorsement for practitioners transferring from other states.

Key provisions described by Bloomquist include creating an advanced esthetician license with a 1,100‑hour curriculum, a grandfathering path that could exempt some current licensees from an additional 500‑hour requirement, a registered apprenticeship option administered with the U.S. Department of Labor, lowering minimum licensure age to 16 with a tenth‑grade education equivalency to enable high‑school programs, and expanding the board from five to seven members to represent all license types.

The board also proposes to remove the statutory requirement that an establishment’s master licensee supervise all licensees at that location, clarify when and why establishment inspections occur, allow alternative practical‑exam administrators (including remote options), and update continuing‑education authorities. Bloomquist said the board has not raised fees since 2003 and described operational cost pressures — data security, licensing software and staffing — that motivate modest fee increases.

Supporters included Nikki Wagner, president of the North Dakota Long Term Care Association, who recommended explicitly adding basic care facilities to sections that reference nursing homes and replacing the phrase “nurse assistant” with “facility staff” to ensure that CNAs and other caregivers can continue to provide grooming services without additional cosmetology licensing. Wagner said the change would avoid undue regulatory burdens and preserve resident dignity.

Jesse Skittrell (appearing online), an apprenticeship ambassador and multi‑employer sponsor for the Department of Labor, urged the committee to adopt the apprenticeship pathway to expand access and address a shortage of licensed beauty professionals in rural areas. A social work student, Stacy Todorovic, testified in support of the specific provision removing the establishment license requirement for cosmetologists providing services inside eldercare facilities; she said the change would reduce paperwork and cost barriers that discourage providers from serving residents.

Not all speakers were unqualified supporters. Miranda Nichols, a licensed aesthetician and cosmetic tattooing practitioner who operates a business that now functions as a medical spa to comply with current rules, expressed mixed views: she said the bill contains provisions she supports but is concerned about ambiguity in how invasive procedures and medical‑director requirements will be defined and enforced. Committee members questioned how broadly the term “facility staff” should be defined; Wagner said the group could provide a definition if the change made members more comfortable.

Bloomquist closed by reiterating that the board intends to balance reduced barriers — apprenticeships, endorsement streamlining, removing the master‑licensee requirement — with public‑safety protections, training hours for advanced practices and rulemaking authority. The committee closed the public testimony portion of the hearing; no committee vote was recorded that day.