BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 300 (Ma)
Hearing Date: 6/27/2011 Amended: 6/14/2011
Consultant: Katie Johnson Policy Vote: Health 9-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 300 would enact the Safe Body Art Act; it would
provide for minimum statewide standards for the regulation of
individuals in the business of tattooing, body piercing, and the
application of permanent cosmetics. The provisions would take
effect July 1, 2012.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Local Enforcement unknown, likely in the millions of
dollars Local*
Agency (LEA) start-up, annually; fully supported by local
fees,
ongoing administration commencing July 1, 2012
and enforcement
*Although this bill would enact a state-mandated local program,
it would not meet the criteria for state reimbursement because
LEAs would have the authority to impose fees for the
administrative and enforcement costs of this program.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
There would be minimal fiscal effect on the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH) since this bill would
delegate the enforcement of the Safe Body Art Act to local
enforcement agencies (LEAs). LEAs would have the authority to
increase local fees to provide for the administration and
enforcement costs of implementing this program. Additionally,
although this constitutes a state-mandated local program, since
the LEAs would have the authority to charge fees to cover the
cost of the program, local costs would be ineligible for
reimbursement by the state. This bill would take effect July 1,
2012.
AB 300 (Ma)
Page 1
Existing Law and Guidelines
Existing law, AB 186 (Brown), Chapter 742, Statutes of 1997,
requires the California Conference of Local Health Officers
(CCLHO) to establish sterilization, sanitation, and safety
standards for persons engaged in the business of tattooing, body
piercing, or permanent cosmetics and requires the Department of
Health Services (now CDPH and the Department of Health Care
Services) to provide the necessary resources to support the
development of these standards. CDPH was to receive the
standards by July 1, 1998, for "review and consultation." Within
30 days of adoption, AB 186 required the department to
distribute the standards to all county health departments.
AB 186 further requires every person engaged in the business of
tattooing, body piercing, or permanent cosmetics to register
with the county in which that business is located by December
31, 1998, to obtain a copy of the county's sterilization,
sanitation, and safety standards, as developed by CCLHO and
reviewed by CDPH, and to pay a one-time registration fee of $25,
an annual inspection fee of $105, and any other fee that the
county assesses in order to provide for the cost of registration
and inspection. A person who fails to register or who violates
safety standards is liable for a civil penalty of up to $500.
Counties are permitted to establish standards that do not
conflict with or that are more comprehensive than those existing
in current law or adopted by CDPH.
CCLHO has developed standards, but CDPH has not adopted them as
regulations. In 2008, the Legislative Counsel opined that CDPH
is not required by AB 186 to adopt the CCLHO standards in order
for those standards to be enforceable. However, CCLHO remains
concerned that those standards would be "underground"
regulations. This bill would place statewide body art health
standards into statute and thus resolve the AB 186
interpretation dispute between CDPH and CCLHO.
AB 300 Standards for Tattooing, Branding, and Other Body Art
This bill would repeal current standards by enacting the Safe
Body Art Act. This bill would establish statewide restrictions
on the performance of body art and would prohibit minors from
being offered or receiving a tattoo, permanent cosmetics
application, genital piercing, or branding, regardless of a
parent's consent, as specified. This bill would also establish
AB 300 (Ma)
Page 2
procedures, techniques, and training necessary to ensure safe
body art practices, including an Infection Prevention and
Control Plan, decontamination and sanitation area requirements,
sterilization procedures, the types of inks, dyes, and pigments
that may be used and how, and standards for the use and disposal
of needles, needle bars, grommets, and razors.
The act would require temporary and permanent body art
facilities and body art practitioners to register with the LEA,
which is defined as being the local health agency of the city,
county, or city and county, and to meet specified health and
safety criteria. Registration would be required to be renewed
annually, or as appropriate for temporary facilities. LEAs would
be required to set participant and facility registration fees at
amounts sufficient to cover the actual costs of administering
and enforcing the program. The act would also establish
enforcement and non-compliance procedures and associated
penalties for violations, including the authority for an LEA to
assess an administrative penalty of $25 - $1,000. This bill
would provide that performing body art without being registered,
operating a body art facility without a health permit, or
operating a temporary body art event without a permit would be a
misdemeanor. The creation of a new crime would constitute a
non-reimbursable state-mandated local program. To the extent
that an LEA exercises its enforcement authority, penalty revenue
could be generated.
Staff recommends that the bill be amended to:
1) Define "sponsor" of a temporary body art facility.
2) Permit an LEA to set fees that are sufficient to cover
the administrative and enforcement costs of providing
permits to the sponsor of and practitioner related to
temporary body art facilities.
3) Clarify that the sponsor and the practitioner would both
be responsible for obtaining all relevant permits to
conduct the business of a temporary body art facility and
would both be subject to penalties if found in violation.
Ear Piercing
This bill would also set ear piercing with a mechanical device
apart from the definition of body art and would establish
requirements for its performance. This bill would permit an LEA
to require ear piercing facilities to notify the LEA of the
provision of ear piercing services. If an LEA requires
notification, it would have the authority to charge a one-time
AB 300 (Ma)
Page 3
fee in an amount between $25 and $45 for each facility operating
within its jurisdiction. The fee should not exceed the amount
reasonably necessary to cover the actual administrative costs.
After December 31, 2015, a county would be permitted to charge a
different fee, to be set by local ordinance that would be
required to cover no more than the cost of the program.
Prior Legislation
AB 300 is similar to AB 517 (Ma, 2009) and AB 223 (Ma, 2010),
which were both vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The
Governor's AB 223 veto message states, "It is a common complaint
within the business community that "overregulation" is driving
businesses out of California. Look no further than AB 223 for
such an example?it is not appropriate to tell tattoo artists
through the statute how to wash their hands and fold their
trashbags one inch over the rim of a trashcan. If the sponsors
wanted a bill that addressed the purported problem, a simple
statutory authorization for the Department of Public Health to
promulgate standardized regulations would have been acceptable."
This bill is co-sponsored by the Alliance of Professional
Tattooists, the Association of Professional Piercers, the
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators,
and the Health Officers Association of California and addresses
parts of the veto message by replacing the requirement that
trashbags be folded one inch over the rim of the trashcan and
the 150 foot-candles of light requirement with "lined waste
containers" and "adequate light".
AB 517 and AB 223 both passed out of the Senate Appropriations
Committee with votes of 8-2 and 9-0, respectively.