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