SB 1374 revises Missouri’s cosmetology licensing law by repealing and reenacting sections 329.010 and 329.050. The bill updates statutory definitions for cosmetology-related occupations and expressly adds a new combined license classification, “Class EA - esthetics and manicuring,” which covers both esthetics and manicuring practices. It also clarifies existing classifications for hairdressers, manicurists, estheticians, hair braiders, apprentices, instructors, and cosmetology establishments, and defines “parental consent” for body waxing on or near the genitalia of a minor.
The bill also adjusts licensure and examination requirements. It preserves the general age, education, training-hour, and examination standards for cosmetology applicants, while specifying apprenticeship and school-hour requirements for cosmetologists, manicurists, and estheticians, including combined-hour rules when occupations are taken together. It continues to allow applicants trained in other states or foreign countries to sit for examination if their education is substantially equivalent, subject to board review and possible transcript translation requirements.
In addition, SB 1374 retains and restates the board’s authority to deny licensure to applicants with certain serious criminal convictions, including dangerous felonies, murder, sexual offenses, offenses against children and families, and child pornography-related crimes. The bill therefore affects the state board of cosmetology and barber examiners, cosmetology schools, apprentices, licensed practitioners, and applicants seeking entry into the profession.
The overall sentiment appears neutral to mildly supportive based on the bill’s framing, with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials. The bill is presented as a technical and regulatory update to the cosmetology licensing framework rather than a controversial policy change. The caption’s emphasis on adding a new combined esthetics-and-manicuring classification suggests an intent to streamline or modernize licensure pathways.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available record, but potential areas of debate could include the new combined license category, the training-hour requirements, and the scope of criminal-history disqualifications. These issues would most likely concern cosmetology students, licensed professionals, schools, and the regulatory board if the bill were discussed in committee or on the floor.
SB 1374 would amend Missouri’s cosmetology statutes by replacing the existing definitions and licensure provisions in sections 329.010 and 329.050 with updated language. The bill creates a new “Class EA - esthetics and manicuring” license classification, refines the definitions of cosmetology occupations and establishments, and preserves the State Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners’ role in setting and enforcing training, examination, and licensure standards. It also continues to authorize the board to review out-of-state and foreign credentials and to deny licensure based on specified serious criminal convictions.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its text. It appears to be a routine professional-regulation measure with a generally neutral to favorable posture, aimed at clarifying licensing categories and updating cosmetology rules. The absence of opposition or recorded controversy suggests no clear partisan or procedural conflict in the available record.
No explicit contention is documented in the supplied transcripts or votes. If debated, likely points of discussion would include whether the new combined esthetics-and-manicuring license changes professional standards, whether the apprenticeship and school-hour requirements are appropriately calibrated, and whether the criminal disqualification provisions are too broad or too restrictive. Those issues would primarily affect cosmetologists, estheticians, manicurists, apprentices, schools, and the licensing board.