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