A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 7 of Title 54.1 a section numbered 54.1-708, relating to professions and occupations; barbers and cosmetologists; estheticians; permanent make-up specialty licensure; licensure by endorsement.
HB186 would create a new permanent make-up specialty license for licensed estheticians and master estheticians in Virginia. The bill authorizes the Board to issue this specialty license to practitioners who perform permanent make-up services, including permanent eyebrow, eyeliner, lip coloration, and similar pigmentation services, and directs the Board to adopt regulations to implement the new licensure category.
The bill also establishes a licensure-by-endorsement pathway for applicants who already hold a current, unrestricted license to perform permanent make-up services in another state, the District of Columbia, or a U.S. territory or possession, provided they have held that license for at least three years and can show qualifications equal to Virginia’s standards. In effect, the measure would expand the regulatory framework for cosmetic tattooing and related services while creating a route for out-of-state professionals to enter the Virginia market.
HB186 would amend Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia by adding § 54.1-708, giving the Board authority to regulate a new permanent make-up specialty license within the esthetics profession. It would affect licensed estheticians and master estheticians who offer permanent make-up services, as well as out-of-state practitioners seeking Virginia licensure by endorsement. The bill would require the Board to promulgate implementing regulations and would set minimum equivalency and experience standards for endorsement applicants.
The available record shows no recorded votes or committee transcript discussion, and the bill was left in the House Committee on General Laws. Based on the text alone, the measure appears administrative and professional-regulatory in nature, with a likely goal of clarifying and standardizing licensure for a specialized cosmetic service. Because there is no documented debate in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly from committee remarks or floor action.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee materials. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill’s structure, could include whether permanent make-up should be treated as a distinct specialty, how stringent the endorsement standards should be for out-of-state licensees, and whether the Board should have broad discretion to define qualifications and regulations. Any opposition would likely come from concerns about regulatory burden, consumer safety, or the scope of practice for estheticians and master estheticians.