STATE OF WISCONSIN
Cosmetology Examining Board
IN THE MATTER OF RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COSMETOLOGY EXAMINING BOARD
ORDER OF THE COSMETOLOGY EXAMINING BOARD
CLEARINGHOUSE RULE 15-035
An order of the Cosmetology Examining Board to repeal Cos. 1.01 (11e), 1.01 (17), 2.025 (2) (a) 1. to 5., (2g), and (2r) (h), (i), and (j), 3.02 (3), and 4.01 (3); to amend Cos 1.01 (6m), 2.025 (2) (a) (intro.), 2.04 (2), 2.06 (4) and (5), 2.07, 3.01 (6) and (10), 3.02 (1) and (2) (b), 3.04 (2), 3.05 (1), 4.01 (2), 4.02 (3) and (6) (Note), 4.04 (1), 6.04, 7.03 (2), 7.04, 8.01 (2), 8.02 (intro.), 9.02 (title), 11.01, 11.03 (5) (b) and (c) 2., 3., and 5., 11.04 (4) and (5) (b); to repeal and recreate Cos 9.03; to create Cos 1.01 (3e), 1.01 (3m), 2.405 (1) (Note), 3.01 (10) (Note), 4.01 (3), (3g), and (3r), 8.03, 11.04 (1) (e), relating to cosmetology schooling, licensure, and practice requirements.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services.
Explanation of agency authority:
Pursuant to ss. 15.08 (5) (b) and 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Cosmetology Examining Board (Board) is generally empowered by the legislature to promulgate rules that will provide guidance within the profession and to interpret the statutes it administers. Section 454.06 (8m) (d), Stats., requires the Board to establish, by rule, the limits of minimal cosmetology work for inactive licensees. Section 454.08 (1) (a), Stats., authorizes the Board to promulgate rules providing for cosmetology services outside of licensed cosmetology establishments. The passage of 2011 Wisconsin Act 190 prompted the Board to review all of the regulations concerning cosmetology and undertake a comprehensive update of the rules making them consistent with the new legislation as well as contemporary industry practices.
Related statute or rule:
Wis. Admin. Code Cos. chs. 1 to 11
Plain language analysis:
The Cosmetology Examining Board undertook a comprehensive review of the rules governing cosmetology practice in Wisconsin. This review was prompted by the passage of 2011 Wisconsin Act 190 which separated the Barbering and Cosmetology Examining Board, leaving the regulation of cosmetology practice to the Cosmetology Examining Board and transferring the regulation of the practice of barbering to the Department of Safety and Professional Services. This proposed rule makes the changes necessitated by the passage of 2011 Wisconsin Act 190 to Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters 1 to 11, which includes redefining the term manager to cosmetology manager and creating an inactive license classification. Other changes in the proposed rule include identifying the settings that are excluded from providing cosmetology services outside of a licensed cosmetology establishment, eliminating the requirement for a separate establishment license for electrologists, eliminating the training programs and continuing education required to perform delegated medical procedures, and clarifying the late renewal and reinstatement processes.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation:
Comparison with rules in adjacent states:
Illinois: Cosmetology managers are not licensed in Illinois. Licensed cosmetologists, cosmetology teachers, or cosmetology clinic teachers may elect to place their license on inactive status. 225 ILCS410/3-7.1. Once a cosmetologist, cosmetology teacher or cosmetology clinic teacher’s license is in an inactive status, the licensee may not practice in Illinois. Unlike the Wisconsin provision which allows a licensee to work if the work is minimal. Wis. Stats. § 454.06 (8m) (d).
Iowa: Iowa does not license cosmetology managers but there are provisions regarding inactive license classification. “A licensee who fails to renew the license by the end of the grace period has an inactive license. A licensee whose license is inactive continues to hold the privilege of licensure in Iowa, but may not practice cosmetology arts and sciences in Iowa until the license is reactivated.” 645 IAC 60.8 (6).
Michigan: Michigan does not issue a license for cosmetology managers and does not have an inactive licensure classification.
Minnesota: Similar to Wisconsin, Minnesota regulates salon managers. Minn. Stat. §155A.23. Minnesota also allows for an inactive license for applicants who have ceased all practice of cosmetology. An inactive license does not allow a licensee to engage in the practice of cosmetology. Minn. R. 2105.0200
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies:
The methodologies used in drafting the proposed rule was reviewing 2011 Wisconsin Act 190, reviewing neighboring states statutes and rules, and receiving input from the Cosmetology Examining Board.