Amends and repeals administrative licensing requirements relative to alternative hair and alternative hair design
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 4 amends Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology rules governing “alternative hair” and “alternative hair design,” and repeals the rules that set out the special permit process and the required curriculum for that permit. The resolution keeps the core definitions of alternative hair and alternative hair design in the administrative code, but removes the detailed licensing pathway that previously required a special permit and 500 hours of instruction for practitioners. It also directs the Office of the State Register to publish the changes in the Louisiana Administrative Code.
The resolution is framed as a deregulatory measure. Its findings state that alternative hair design is a safe, time-tested practice that does not involve dyes or reactive chemicals, and that the existing licensing requirements are unnecessary and burdensome. The bill also argues that eliminating those requirements could help practitioners start and expand small businesses, improve access to credit, and support economic development and family financial stability.
Impact
If implemented, HCR 4 would change the Louisiana Administrative Code by amending LAC 46:XXXI.101 and 1101(A) and repealing LAC 46:XXXI.1105 and 1107. In practical terms, this would remove the special permit framework and the associated training curriculum for alternative hair design under the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology, while leaving the general definitions of alternative hair and alternative hair design in place. The measure affects cosmetology regulation, licensing standards, and practitioners who provide braiding, twisting, wrapping, weaving, locking, and related services, as well as cosmetology salons and the board that regulates them.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and vote history is strongly supportive of reducing licensing barriers. The resolution’s findings emphasize safety, low complaint rates, and economic opportunity, suggesting a broad policy preference for allowing alternative hair practitioners to work without a special permit. That support is reinforced by the House final consideration vote, which passed 92-0, indicating unanimous approval among voting members.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the state should continue to regulate alternative hair design through a special permit and required curriculum, or treat it as a low-risk occupation that should be free of licensing. Supporters of the resolution argue that the current rules are unnecessary, costly, and may limit entrepreneurship, especially for practitioners in braiding and related services. The bill’s findings also address a possible cultural or racial association with the practice, stating that practitioners and customers are not limited to any particular group, which suggests sensitivity to concerns about how the occupation has been classified or regulated. No organized opposition is reflected in the available vote record, but the underlying policy debate is between occupational licensing and deregulation.