K.A.R. 69-15-4. Out-of-state equivalent course of study.
Board approval of Each applicant who has completed a training program completed in another state or jurisdiction shall be granted if these requirements are met show that all of the following conditions are met, for that training program to be approved by the board:
(a) During the applicant’s participation in the training program, the trainer was licensed and in good standing as a cosmetic tattoo artist, tattoo artist, or body piercer in
another the state during the applicant’s participation in the training program; or jurisdiction where the training occurred.
(b) The applicant completed the training program under the direct supervision of the trainer, or in a school
(c) The training program covered the areas of theory and practical experience specified in K.A.R. 69-15-2
; and. If the training program completed in another state or jurisdiction included hours allotted to studying the laws and regulations of that state or jurisdiction, those hours may count toward the required number of hours allotted to studying Kansas statutes and regulations.
(d) The training program included the total number of hours of theory and practical experience and the number of completed procedures specified in K.A.R. 69-15-2. (Authorized by
and K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 65-1949 and K.S.A. 74-2702a; implementing L. 1996, Ch. 138, Sec. 4 K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 65-1948 and 65-1949; effective Aug. 22, 1997; amended P-_____________.)
** Strike-through text denotes text that is currently in the regulation but is proposed to be removed. **
** Underlined text denotes text that is proposed to be added to the regulation.**
Economic Impact Statement for K.A.R. 69-15-4
I. Summary of Proposed Regulation, Including Its Purpose.
K.A.R. 69-15-4 outlines the reciprocity requirements for becoming a licensed Kansas tattoo artist, cosmetic tattoo artist, or body piercer for individuals who are currently licensed or have received training in another state.
II. Reason(s) the Proposed Regulation is Required, Including Whether or Not the Regulation is Mandated by Federal Law.
This regulation is amended to align the regulations with the current policy and activities of the Board regarding the approval of out-of-state applicants for examination and potential licensure. It is unreasonable to think that an applicant would study Kansas law as part of a training program conducted in another state. The current regulation creates an artificial barrier to entering the body art profession in Kansas and is amended to allow a higher degree of reciprocity and interstate movement. Amendments to K.A.R. 69-15-7 provide an additional safeguard for the public against individuals becoming licensed in Kansas without the necessary knowledge of and familiarity with Kansas law. This regulation is not mandated by federal law, and, therefore, the regulation does not exceed the requirements of federal law.
III. Anticipated Economic Impact upon the Kansas Board of Cosmetology.
The Board anticipates an increase in revenues resulting from an increased interest in Kansas licensure from out-of-state body art professionals. As a result, the Board will be investing more time and resources in review and denial/approval on those applications.
IV. Anticipated Economic Impact upon Other Governmental Agencies.
The Board does not anticipate economic impact on other governmental agencies.
V. Anticipated Economic Impact upon Private Businesses, Individuals, and Consumers.
The Board hopes that this amendment will encourage tourism and travel in Kansas, bringing those revenue dollars into the state in a variety of ways. Also, removing the artificial barrier to entry will alleviate the financial burden on applicants who have previously been denied licensure in Kansas or required to obtain additional training for failure to meet the Kansas law study requirement within the context of their training program.
VI. Less Costly or Intrusive Methods That Were Considered, but Rejected, and the Reason for Rejection.
The Board considered creating a provision which would force out-of-state practitioners to obtain the Kansas law training, however, it seems overly burdensome and an artificial barrier to entry in Kansas. Removal of this barrier does not subject the public to potential health or sanitation concerns due to the amendment to K.A.R. 69-15-7.