Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cosmetology Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee approves cosmetology rule limiting esthetic procedures; sets 1.4 mm microneedling depth cap
Summary
The Labor, Commerce and Industry committee approved a cosmetology regulation clarifying limits on estheticians’ practices, including a provision that devices that pierce the skin must not penetrate deeper than 1.4 millimeters. The rule aims to distinguish cosmetology from medical practice and respond to concerns about medical spas.
The Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry committee approved a proposed regulation from the South Carolina Board of Cosmetology that clarifies sanitary and safety standards for salons and esthetic practices and draws a clearer line between cosmetology and medical practice.
Committee staff read language from the regulation: “devices, machines or implements intended to pierce or puncture the superficial surface of the skin must not penetrate to a depth of greater than 1.4 millimeters.” That provision was presented as a bright-line limit intended to prevent estheticians from performing deeper microneedling or injections that the regulators and the board consider medical acts. Staff and the subcommittee chair described the changes as prompted by an increase in “med spas” and by complaints to the board about estheticians performing procedures beyond their training.
Senators discussed the scope and practical effects. One senator asked whether the rule would still allow vitamin injections or shallower microneedling; the subcommittee chair and board staff said the rule limits depth but does not categorically ban microneedling at or under the stated depth. Tracy Adams, the board executive for cosmetology, explained that microneedling “to a depth of 1.4” is the threshold referenced in the text. Committee members also noted the regulation sets limits on certain chemical peels (pH) and electric devices to reduce the risk of burns or other injuries, though the transcript records a committee member saying she could not recall the exact pH number during the hearing.
Several senators raised a broader question about whether this evolution of services should instead be addressed statutorily rather than by regulation; the subcommittee chair said the goal was to remain within existing statutory scope and to clarify which practices are medical and which are cosmetology. After discussion, the committee moved, seconded and voted to report the regulation favorably to the full Senate.
The regulation will be circulated to the full Senate for the standard review period; committee members said that unless the Senate acts to disapprove, regulations typically become effective as a matter of law after the review window.
