Scope check
Who may lawfully perform this, in this state?
Checked against the rule the state actually wrote down — quoted, cited, and linked at source. This compares a procedure against a published limit; it is not a judgement about what a treatment does to skin, and it is not legal advice.
Our scope corpus holds rules read at source for 51 states across 9 service categories. Coverage is uneven and we show you which you are in on every answer. Where we have not read a rule we say so — we never treat our silence as the state's permission.
South Carolina · Chemical peel · Rule on record
We have read and cited this state's own rule for chemical peel. The verdict below rests on that text, linked at source so you can verify it.
Cannot evaluate — pH at final formulation not supplied.
South Carolina regulates pH and anatomical layer but sets NO concentration ceiling — so a concentration question alone cannot decide a South Carolina verdict.
- SC sets its limit on pH at final formulation. We will not evaluate against a value we were not given.
The rule this rests on
Exfoliation treatments, whether manual, mechanical, or chemical, should only remove the non-living surface epidermal skin cells, and must not remove cells beyond the basal layer of the epidermis, also known as the stratum germinativum. In addition, peels or chemical exfoliants must not have a pH level, either individually or in combination, of less than 2.5. The use of any product, preparation, device or procedure that cuts, destroys, or alters living tissue is strictly prohibited, and devices intended to pierce or puncture must not penetrate to a depth greater than 1.4 mm.
S.C. Code Regs. 35-20(P)(6) (Sanitary and Safety Rules — Implements, Products and Procedures; eff. 2025-05-23) · verified 2026-08-29 · read at source
MedSpaRadar is regulatory monitoring and reference: it summarizes public laws, regulations and agency actions and links each to its source. It is not legal, medical, or compliance advice, and using it creates no attorney-client relationship. A summary can lag its source or leave out detail, and monitoring itself can be interrupted — so an absence of alerts means nothing reached you, not that nothing happened. Read the cited source, check its effective date, and confirm any change to your operations or clinical practice with qualified health-law counsel and your medical director.
Where the corpus is deep, and where it isn’t
Read this before you rely on a quiet answer. A category with few states behind it is a category where we will more often tell you we don’t know — which is the correct answer, and not the same as a green light.
| Procedure | States with a rule on record |
|---|---|
| Injectable (neuromodulator, dermal filler) | 46 |
| Energy device (laser, IPL, RF, plasma, ultrasound) | 39 |
| Microneedling / collagen induction | 38 |
| Hair removal (laser / IPL) | 35 |
| Chemical peel | 34 |
| Micropigmentation / permanent makeup | 34 |
| Mechanical exfoliation (dermaplaning, microdermabrasion) | 33 |
| Sclerotherapy | 29 |
| Body contouring (cryolipolysis, RF, ultrasound) | 17 |
Every rule behind these answers is read at an official source and cited. The wider cited corpus — supervision, good-faith exams, ownership and CPOM, advertising — lives on the state pages, and how we decide what to publish is written down in the methodology.
Get regulatory changes as they publish
We scan all 50 state legislatures daily, plus the FDA and the Federal Register. Free weekly Brief — what changed, in plain language, with the source.
Free · unsubscribe in one click · we never sell your address