Committee hears bill to join Cosmetology Licensure Compact; cosmetology board raises concerns

Assembly Member Selena Torres Fawcett opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 371, which would enact the Cosmetology Licensure Compact in Nevada and create a multistate license allowing cosmetologists licensed in a member state to practice in any other member state under a mutual‑recognition model.

Keith Bacow of the Council of State Governments described the compact as an optional interstate framework modeled on other occupational licensure compacts. He said the compact preserves state authority over licensing standards and discipline, requires home‑state issuance of the multistate license, and mandates that member states require applicants to pass a competency examination and satisfy education/training requirements. Bacow explained member states must implement at least one of three applicant vetting procedures: a criminal‑history question on the application, a disciplinary‑history question, or a full background check. He noted the compact includes a commission to administer the compact and a database for licensure verification, and he said eight states had enacted the compact at the time of testimony.

Leslie Rosti of the Future of the Beauty Industry Coalition testified in support and described workforce benefits: employers could recruit from a larger pool, cosmetologists could begin work immediately upon moving between member states, and the compact would reduce delays caused by paper reciprocity. Rosti also emphasized public‑health protections built into national exam content and infection‑control standards and noted the compact includes mobility provisions for military service members and spouses.

Support testimony came from business groups and the Defense State Liaison Office, which highlighted mobility benefits for military families stationed in Nevada. The Vegas Chamber provided written/support testimony.

Stephen McDonald, executive director of the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, testified as a neutral‑turned‑opposed witness because the board felt existing Nevada reciprocity processes (citing NRS 644.460 and NRS 622.52) already address mobility and are processed quickly for military applicants. McDonald and board staff told the committee the board had processed interstate license applicants rapidly — sometimes within days — and expressed concern that the compact might duplicate existing reciprocity and shift responsibilities or standards away from the state. The board indicated it intended to receive a fuller presentation from compact proponents at its next meeting before deciding whether to support the bill.

Committee members asked about fees, member states, and the compact’s impact on public health protections and credential fraud. Bacow said the compact allows the commission to assess a fee to support an interstate licensure data system and that member states could charge a multistate license fee; he did not project substantial state costs beyond minor software or travel assessments. The compact also includes protections allowing remote states to take action against a multistate licensee practicing in their jurisdiction and to issue subpoenas for evidence as part of discipline.

Ending — next steps: The committee heard support testimony but did not take a final vote. Proponents and the cosmetology board planned further consultation; the board scheduled a presentation and possible vote at its meeting.