State Board of Cosmetologists - Licensing - Eyelash Extensions
SB617 authorizes the Maryland State Board of Cosmetologists to issue a new limited license to provide eyelash extension services. The bill adds eyelash extension services to the statutory definitions of both “practice cosmetology” and “provide esthetic services,” and creates a separate definition for what eyelash extension services include, such as cleaning the eye area, applying primers, adhesives, extensions, and sealant, and drying the eye area.
The bill also sets training, examination, supervision, and practice rules for the new license. Applicants must be at least 17 years old, have a 9th grade education or equivalent, and either complete 3 months of apprenticeship, 100 hours of approved instruction, or pass a practical and written exam. The measure allows licensed eyelash extension technicians to practice only eyelash extension services, permits them to supervise apprentices after two years of experience, and requires the Board to update curriculum standards and continuing education rules to include eyelash extension training. It also makes eyelash extension technicians eligible to work in the same limited settings and under the same salon sponsorship rules that apply to other cosmetology licensees.
In terms of state law, the bill amends multiple sections of the Business Occupations and Professions Article governing cosmetology licensing, limited licenses, apprenticeships, salon permits, and where services may be performed. It expands the Board’s regulatory authority and inserts a new occupational category into Maryland’s cosmetology licensing framework, while leaving the broader cosmetology licensing structure intact. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a wide margin, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on formalizing eyelash extension work within the existing licensing system. No committee transcript issues are provided, and the voting history suggests little organized opposition.
The main policy issue is the creation of a distinct licensing pathway for eyelash extension technicians rather than requiring them to fit entirely within existing esthetician or cosmetology categories. Any contention would likely center on whether the training threshold is sufficient, whether the new license protects consumer safety, and how the new category affects existing estheticians and cosmetologists, but the available record shows no significant dispute in the legislative process.
SB617 amends the Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Article to create a new limited license for eyelash extension services, add that work to the definitions of cosmetology and esthetic services, and require the State Board of Cosmetologists to regulate training, curriculum standards, continuing education, apprenticeship supervision, and practice limits for the new occupation. It affects cosmetologists, estheticians, apprentices, beauty salons, and eyelash extension technicians by establishing a formal licensing and oversight structure for eyelash extension work.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad, bipartisan support and faced little to no opposition. It passed the Senate 47-0 and the House 127-8, which suggests the legislature viewed it as a straightforward occupational licensing update rather than a controversial policy change. No committee discussion transcripts are available, and the voting record indicates a generally favorable reception.
The main potential point of contention is whether eyelash extension services should be regulated as a separate limited license or simply treated as part of existing esthetician licensing. Related concerns could include the adequacy of the 100-hour training option, the 3-month apprenticeship pathway, consumer safety around eye-area procedures and adhesives, and how the new license may affect competition or scope of practice for existing cosmetologists and estheticians. However, the recorded votes show no substantial legislative conflict.