Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Occupational Licensure Cosmetology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears bill to join multistate cosmetology licensure compact
Summary
The Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor heard AB371, which would enact the Cosmetology Licensure Compact to allow multistate cosmetology practice; witnesses and state officials discussed eligibility rules, public-safety safeguards and potential cost implications for Nevada.
Assemblymember Selena Torres Fawcett introduced AB371 on behalf of the Legislature, saying the bill "enacts the cosmetology licensure compact" and that the compact covers "approximately 600,000 licensed cosmetologists in the United States." The measure would allow a cosmetologist licensed in a "home state" to obtain a multistate license authorizing practice in other member states without repeated re‑licensing steps.
The compact’s purpose, Keith Bacow of the Council of State Governments told the committee, is "to create an additional optional alternative pathway to multistate practice by allowing cosmetologists whose license is in good standing to apply for a multistate license in their home state." Bacow and other presenters said the compact uses a mutual‑recognition model: the home state issues the multistate license and other compact members recognize it, while each state retains authority over scope of practice and discipline for conduct that occurs inside its borders.
Leslie Roste of the Future of the Beauty Industry Coalition, who identified herself as an infection‑control specialist and item writer for national licensure exams, argued the compact preserves health and safety standards. "Infection control in this industry has almost no variance from state to state," she said, describing consistent curriculum and testing across jurisdictions. Roste and other proponents said the compact would reduce delays for licensees moving into Nevada and help employers fill vacancies more quickly.
Supporters, including Kelli Mae Douglas of the Defense State Liaison Office, said the compact particularly benefits military families. Douglas told the committee that the Defense Department supports the measure because interstate licensure compacts "facilitate greater career sustainability for military spouses, improving their family's financial security and overall well‑being." Amy Shogren of Black & Wadhams (representing the Vegas Chamber) also testified in support, calling the bill a "modernization" measure.
The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology's executive director, Stephen McDonald, told the panel the board initially voted to oppose the bill and remained concerned about whether the compact offers anything beyond existing reciprocity processes. "To the board, it appeared to us to be more reciprocity, which we're already doing, under our statutes," McDonald said, adding the board processes military applications rapidly and intends to review the compact further at an upcoming meeting.
Presenters and committee members discussed procedural details: eligibility rules require states to license cosmetology, require applicants to pass a competency exam and meet education/training standards, and to implement at least one of three applicant‑screening steps (a criminal‑history question on the application, a disciplinary‑history disclosure, or a background check). Bacow and others said member states would share data through an Interstate Licensure Data System and that a compact commission would administer the compact, funded in part by small member or license fees.
The committee closed the hearing after additional questions about member states and fee authority. No vote was taken during the hearing.
Ending: The committee did not take an immediate vote; staff and the board are expected to continue discussions with proponents before any further action.
