Occupations: cosmetologists; branch facilities for a school of cosmetology; provide for. Amends 1980 PA 299 (MCL 339.101 - 339.2677) by adding sec. 1205b.
Senate Bill 131 would amend Michigan’s Occupational Code to create a new license category for a “secondary school facility” associated with an existing school of cosmetology. The bill requires the Department to issue this license if the applicant submits a detailed application, including the facility’s intended use, address, and floor plan, and if the facility meets specified standards, passes inspection, and is operated by a licensed cosmetology school owner or manager. The facility must be separate from the main cosmetology school premises and is limited to classroom-based cosmetology instruction.
The bill also restricts these facilities from offering cosmetology services to the public or housing equipment used to perform such services, such as styling chairs or hair-drying chairs. Instruction must be provided by a licensed cosmetology instructor with at least three years of experience in the services being taught. The Department must regularly inspect these facilities, and the license becomes void if the facility is sold, transferred, or moved, requiring a new application and license if operations continue at a new location or under new ownership.
In addition to the licensing framework, the bill requires the facility and each instructor’s license to be displayed prominently and directs the Department, in consultation with the board, to adopt implementing rules within 18 months. In practical terms, the bill adds a new regulated branch-facility model for cosmetology education and expands state oversight of cosmetology training sites under the Occupational Code.
The overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill was reported favorably without amendment in committee and then passed the Senate by a strong margin, indicating broad support for the concept of allowing cosmetology schools to operate separate instructional facilities under state licensing and inspection requirements.
There is little recorded public contention in the available materials, but the structure of the bill suggests the main policy concern is consumer protection and training quality. The restrictions on public services, equipment, instructor experience, inspections, and license voiding on transfer or relocation appear designed to address concerns about unregulated salon-like operations while still permitting expanded educational facilities.
The bill would add section 1205b to Michigan’s Occupational Code, creating a new state licensing framework for cosmetology school branch or secondary instructional facilities. It would require the Department to license, inspect, and regulate these facilities, establish application and operational standards, and promulgate implementing rules. The measure would affect cosmetology school operators, instructors, and the Department’s licensing and enforcement responsibilities, while prohibiting these facilities from functioning as public-service salons.
Available voting history indicates strong support for the bill. It was reported favorably without amendment in committee and later passed the Senate 33-3, suggesting broad bipartisan acceptance of the proposal. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate significant opposition in the materials supplied.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, any likely concerns would center on whether the new branch-facility model could blur the line between educational sites and public cosmetology businesses, and whether the inspection, instructor-experience, and equipment restrictions are sufficient to protect consumers and maintain training standards. Supporters appear to favor the bill as a way to expand cosmetology education options while keeping those facilities under state oversight.