BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2425
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2425 (Quirk)
As Amended August 18, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(May 15, 2014) |SENATE: |36-0 |(August 21, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HEALTH
SUMMARY : Provides for a temporary exemption from complying with
an existing regulation governing forensic alcohol analysis tests
for accredited law enforcement laboratories and provides the
exemption only until the Department of Public Health (DPH)
updates their existing regulations.
The Senate amendments remove provisions of the bill that
temporarily exempt accredited laboratories from complying with
all existing regulations for law enforcement laboratories
engaging in forensic alcohol analysis tests and instead
temporarily exempt accredited laboratories from a specific
regulatory provision regarding secondary verification standards
that are used to check the calibration of the instruments used
for forensic alcohol analysis.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author, although the Forensic
Alcohol Review (FAR) Committee was created to update DPH's
archaic regulations for forensic blood alcohol analysis and has
met regularly over the last 10 years, DPH and the California
Health and Human Services Agency have yet to approve any
regulatory changes. The author states DPH regulations were
written in 1971 and have not been updated in nearly 30 years and
many sections are outdated or inconsistent with California law,
current health advisories, and modern instrumentation and
technology. Another issue the author highlights is that
complying with the regulation's requirements for college degrees
and coursework is difficult because degrees have changed and
cross-referencing them with courses from the 1980s is
challenging and creates unnecessary workload and backlog.
Regulations make no mention of modern technology that has
AB 2425
Page 2
advanced data processing systems and mobile breath instruments
that allow laboratories to reach new levels of efficiency and
accuracy. For example, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology traceable dry gas standards allow for scientists to
check the calibration of their instruments with every single
subject breath test, versus every 10 days with a solution as
required by the current regulations.
The author argues DPH's unwillingness to approve new regulations
impedes the FAR Committee from completing the work the
Legislature has tasked them to do. The author concludes the
antiquated regulations compromise public safety and prosecution
of drunk drivers.
Prior to 1969, laboratories performing forensic alcohol analysis
were largely unregulated. The forensic community recognized a
need for consistency and guidelines to provide the most accurate
forensic alcohol testing. In 1969, legislation was passed
authorizing the Department of Health Services (DHS), a
predecessor to DPH, to adopt regulations for the testing of
biological samples for alcohol content from persons subject to
the implied consent provisions of the Vehicle Code. The new law
required DHS to form an Advisory Committee on Alcohol
Determination comprised of district attorneys, public defenders,
coroners, criminalists, pathologists, and analytical chemists.
The committee met in 1970, and DHS regulations, commonly
referred to as Title 17, were put in place in 1971. All
laboratories engaged in the performance of forensic alcohol
analysis, by or for a law enforcement agency, were now licensed
and subject to these regulations. The regulations were last
revised in 1986. Only laboratories performing alcohol analysis
for law enforcement were required to be licensed. All other
laboratories and all other forensic disciplines were, and
remain, exempt from state regulation.
In 2004, the Legislature responded to the identified issues and
problems with the program and enacted SB 1623 (Johnson), Chapter
337, Statutes of 2004. The purpose of SB 1623 was to reduce the
unnecessary costs of complying with the DHS regulatory program,
streamline the regulatory requirements, and develop regulations
that actually reflected the state of technology and practice in
labs. SB 1623 took the unusual step of eliminating the
requirement that DHS license the labs. In addition, it
established the FAR Committee. The FAR Committee is comprised
of scientific, law enforcement, and legal representatives and
AB 2425
Page 3
was given the authority to evaluate regulations and provide
revisions that will ensure the competence of laboratories and
employees to prepare, analyze, and report the results of
biological samples tested for alcohol content and comply with
applicable laws.
According to the sponsor, the Santa Clara County District
Attorney's Office, the failure to update the regulations has put
public safety at risk. Since the last update in 1986, the
sponsor explains, there have been many changes in the
instrumentation and technology surrounding the testing of
specimens, the process by which it's done, education
requirements for laboratory employees, and California statutes
concerning driving under the influence. The sponsor argues this
bill recognizes how important it is for the regulations to be
incompliance with the law and current laboratory standards and
will allow the concepts developed by the review committee to be
adopted into regulation.
There is no opposition on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097
FN: 0005056