BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 300 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 300 (Ma) - As Amended: March 10, 2011 Policy Committee: HealthVote:17-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill clarifies and expands California's body art (tattooing and piercing) regulatory and oversight structure established by AB 186 (Brown), Chapter 742, Statutes of 1997. Specifically, this bill: 1)Codifies uniform statewide definitions for oversight and regulation of the body art industry. 2)Requires local jurisdictions to register practitioners and businesses annually following a site visit and review of documentation, such as an infection control plan. Specifies that registrant fees for individuals and businesses are to be set at a level to fully support workload associated with the requirements of this bill. 3)Establishes specified prohibitions on body art practices. For example, limitations are placed on customers with regard to age and medical condition. Requires informed consent to be given and a signed consent form to be retained prior to body art services being provided. 4)Establishes a framework under which body art practitioners qualify to provide services, including training, health and safety business practices, documentation handling and storage, and compliance with statewide standards contained in the bill. 5)Modifies the penalty associated with violations of body art practice standards from a current flat $500 penalty to a tiered $25 to $1,000 penalty. Establishes violations of this bill as misdemeanors. AB 300 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT 1)No direct state fiscal impact. Most provisions of this bill provide specific direction to body art practitioners and businesses with respect to clean and sanitary practices. Any workload created by this bill falls on local health departments that are authorized to fund that workload through local public health fee schedules. 2)Several requirements fall on agencies charged with the protection of community health and safety. Like other locally funded programs such as solid waste, hazardous materials, and food inspection, this body art regulatory and enforcement framework is fully-fee supported, with the fees levied on individuals and business supporting the workload of the regulator. 3)Minor nonreimbursable local law enforcement costs, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue to local enforcement agencies. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . This bill is co-sponsored by the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators (CAEHA), the Health Officers Association of California, the Alliance of Professional Tattooists, and the Association of Professional Piercers to establish a statewide and uniform approach to body art businesses and practitioners. This bill ensures that health and safety standards are adopted and met statewide. Unsafe tattooing and piercing practices can lead to serious health impacts such as Hepatitis or HIV-infection, as well a range of other blood-borne infections. Since enactment, local health interests have been urging the state Department of Public Health (DPH) to ensure the AB 186 standards are enforced statewide through regulation. 2)Health and Safety Risks of Body Art . According to the author and sponsor, health and safety standards are inconsistent or lacking under current law, leaving patients and consumers at risk for infection. Specific risks of tattoos include blood-borne diseases, skin disorders, skin infections, and allergic reactions. Piercing also carries risks including AB 300 Page 3 infection, allergies, nerve damage, and excessive bleeding. 3)Bill Addresses Inconsistent Adoption Of Body Art Standards . This bill codifies minimum statewide standards that were drafted by local agencies pursuant to AB 186, but never adopted by the state through regulation. AB 186 required standards to be submitted to DPH for review and consultation by July 1, 1998 and required DPH to distribute those standards to all county health departments. DPH and the California Conference of Local Health Officers (CCLHO) have differed in their interpretation of requirements of the original law. DPH has stated that regulations are not necessary, as the law does not explicitly require them to adopt regulations. However, although the standards have been drafted by CCLHO pursuant to AB 186, they are currently not enforced statewide. In response to the lack of statewide standards, some local jurisdictions have set up the infrastructure for regulating body art practitioners and businesses, while others have not. This bill solves the problem of inconsistent application of body art standards by codifying statewide minimum standards and clarifying that body art standards are enforceable statewide. The bill does not preclude local jurisdictions from adopting local regulations that are more stringent than, and do not conflict with, the provisions of the bill. There is no registered opposition to the bill. 3) Related Legislation . AB 223 (Ma) in 2010 was substantially similar to this bill and was vetoed. The veto message indicates the legislation would provide excessive oversight and regulation. Associations representing the regulated communities are co-sponsors of this legislation. Sponsors remain focused on improved health and safety through statewide, uniform implementation of these standards. Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081