HCR 2 amends two Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology rules and repeals two others to change how “alternative hair” and “alternative hair design” are regulated. The resolution rewrites the definitions in LAC 46:XXXI.101, updates the list of special permits in LAC 46:XXXI.1101(A), and repeals LAC 46:XXXI.1105 and 1107 — the provisions that set the special‑permit framework and a 500‑hour Alternative Hair Design curriculum.
The practical effect is to remove the board’s rule‑level training and permitting requirements for alternative hair practices and natural hair braiding while directing the Office of the State Register to publish the changes in the Louisiana Administrative Code. That recalibrates oversight for a time‑tested set of services, with implications for practitioners, the board’s enforcement role, consumer protections, and business formation in this sector.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution amends rule text defining "alternative hair" and "alternative hair design," updates the enumerated special permits to include natural hair braiding, and repeals the board rules that prescribed a special‑permit process and a 500‑hour curriculum for alternative hair design. It also directs the state register to incorporate the changes into the Administrative Code.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are alternative‑hair and natural hair‑braiding practitioners, the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (whose rulebook is being altered), cosmetology schools and training programs that offered the 500‑hour curriculum, and salons that previously were the only authorized sites for certain services under the repealed rules.
Why It Matters
Removing the board’s curricular and permit rules lowers a statutory barrier that many say constrained entry and small business formation in a culturally significant trade. At the same time, it shifts responsibility for training, sanitation standards, and consumer protection away from a single board‑prescribed pathway and toward alternative mechanisms (market, insurers, local ordinances, or voluntary certification).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HCR 2 directly targets the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology’s rulebook. It replaces the existing definitions section with a clarified set of terms that continue to define "alternative hair" (including synthetic hair, wiggery, braids, postich) and "alternative hair design" (techniques such as twisting, wrapping, weaving, extending, locking, or braiding, and the application of antiseptics and other topical preparations, but not dyes or reactive chemicals).
By preserving those definitions, the resolution keeps the conceptual boundary between alternative hair services and chemical treatments intact.
The resolution also amends the board’s special‑permits provision to list alternative hair design and natural hair braiding alongside other permits like shampoo assistants and threading. Crucially, it repeals two separate board rules (LAC 46:XXXI.1105 and 1107) that previously set out how special permits are obtained, limited where services could be provided (e.g., only in board‑licensed salons), and required a 500‑hour Alternative Hair Design curriculum.
With those repeals, the rulebook no longer prescribes that curriculum or the procedural requirements tied to the special permit.Because the document is a concurrent resolution invoking the legislature’s authority over administrative rules, it instructs the Office of the State Register to publish the amended definitions and the repeals in the Louisiana Administrative Code and to send the updated rules to the Board. The resolution itself does not create a new licensing regime or establish a replacement curriculum; instead, it removes the specific board‑level education and permit requirements and leaves the field open for alternate training pathways, private certification, local rules, or continued voluntary compliance with remaining state statutes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution repeals LAC 46:XXXI.1105 and 1107 — the board rules that contained the special‑permit procedures and the 500‑hour Alternative Hair Design curriculum.
LAC 46:XXXI.101’s amended definitions retain that "alternative hair" includes synthetic hair, wiggery, braids, postich, and other applied hair types.
The amended LAC 46:XXXI.1101(A) explicitly lists both "alternative hair design" and "natural hair braiding" in the board’s inventory of special permits.
The definition of "alternative hair design" continues to prohibit application of dyes or reactive chemicals to alter the structure or style of a person's natural hair.
The resolution directs the Office of the State Register to print the amendments and repeals in the Louisiana Administrative Code and to forward the revised rules to the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions revised and codified in rule text
This section replaces the existing definitions block with updated language that explicitly defines Alternative Hair and Alternative Hair Design and preserves the line separating styling of applied/synthetic hair from chemical alteration of natural hair. For compliance officers, the immediate effect is a durable definitional benchmark in the Administrative Code even as procedural rules are removed; the definitions will guide enforcement and any future rulemaking or local regulation.
Special permits list amended to include natural hair braiding
The board’s catalog of special permits is amended to enumerate alternative hair design and natural hair braiding alongside other permit categories. The practical implication is that the board still recognizes these practices as distinct permit types on paper, but because the repealed rules previously governing permit issuance are removed, the entry criteria, continuing education, site restrictions, and application process previously tied to these permits are no longer set out in these board rules.
Special‑permit procedures and the 500‑hour curriculum removed
Repealing 1105 and 1107 eliminates the board‑level requirements that specified who could receive an alternative hair special permit, confined services to board‑licensed salons, and required a 500‑hour Alternative Hair Design curriculum covering topics from bacteriology to braiding. That repeal dissolves the single, board‑mandated training pathway — affecting schools, apprenticeships, and permit enforcement mechanisms — and raises questions about where standards for sanitation and competence will now originate.
Publication and transmission to the board
The resolution instructs the state register to incorporate the amended definitions and the repeals into the Louisiana Administrative Code and to send the revised rules to the Board of Cosmetology. This is the procedural step that makes the change part of the official rules landscape and triggers the practical removal of the curricula and permit language from the codified rulebook.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Alternative hair and natural hair‑braiding practitioners — Removing the 500‑hour curriculum and the specific special‑permit procedures lowers regulatory entry costs and reduces barriers to operating independently or as mobile/sole‑proprietor businesses.
- Aspiring small‑business owners and entrepreneurs in affected communities — Easier market entry and fewer rule‑level prerequisites make it simpler to open salons, offer services, and obtain small‑business loans or microfinance tied to demonstrable revenue rather than board credentials.
- Community training programs and non‑degree providers — With the board’s curriculum repealed, community colleges, apprenticeship programs, and private trainers can offer shorter or alternative training packages tailored to the market without conflicting with a single board‑mandated course of study.
- Consumers seeking more access or lower prices — Reduced regulatory burdens can expand service availability and competition, particularly in neighborhoods underserved by licensed salons.
Who Bears the Cost
- Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology — The board loses authority embedded in the repealed rules to prescribe training, limit service locations, and directly regulate practitioner competence by rule, which could reduce fee revenue and complicate enforcement strategies.
- Licensed cosmetologists and salons that invested in compliance with the prior curriculum — Established licensees who paid for training or structured businesses around the old rules may face increased competition from providers who enter without completing the previously required coursework.
- Consumers and public health stakeholders — Without a board‑prescribed curriculum and site restrictions, sanitation and infection‑control standards will rely on statutes, market pressure, or local ordinances, raising the risk of inconsistent practices across providers.
- Vocational schools and cosmetology programs that offered the 500‑hour course — Loss of a mandated curriculum can reduce enrollment in specific programs that previously served as the primary training pipeline.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between reducing regulatory barriers to entry for a culturally significant, low‑risk occupation (improving economic opportunity and reducing regulatory cost) and maintaining consistent public‑health and consumer‑protection standards (which the repealed rules sought to centralize through a fixed curriculum and permit process). The bill trades a uniform, board‑controlled pathway for a looser regulatory landscape that may expand access but could fragment standards and enforcement.
The resolution solves one problem — the administrative burdens of a board‑prescribed special permit and a 500‑hour curriculum — but leaves open several implementation and oversight questions. By repealing the procedural rules without replacing them, the legislature removes a uniform training and site‑control regime; that creates ambiguity about who sets minimum sanitation and competency standards and how complaints or harm will be investigated.
Market mechanisms can fill some gaps, but private certification and insurer requirements rarely produce consistent geographic coverage or standardized curricula.
Another practical tension is legal and administrative: the resolution preserves definitions and lists the permit types but eliminates the rules that operationalized permits. That mismatch could produce interpretive disputes about whether the board retains any residual authority to regulate alternative hair practices under other statutes or whether local governments or private certifiers will become the de facto regulators.
The resolution also contains no transitional language about existing permit‑holders, fee refunds, or how educational credits earned under the repealed curriculum are to be treated, creating immediate administrative tasks for the board and training institutions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.