BILL ANALYSIS
AB 223
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 223 (Ma) - As Amended: January 4, 2010
Policy Committee: Health Vote:18-0
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)Authorizes local health officers and directors of
environmental health to establish annual registrant fees for
individuals and businesses to be set at a level to fully
support workload associated with the requirements of this
bill. Requires local jurisdictions to register practitioners
and businesses annually following a site visit and review of
documentation, such as an infection control plan.
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 law flat $500 penalty to a
tiered $25 to $1,000 penalty. Establishes violations of this
AB 223
Page 2
bill as a misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)No direct state fiscal impact. Prior legislation established
the framework to be adopted statewide and this bill codifies
related regulations. 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.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill is sponsored by the California
Association of Environmental Health Administrators (CAEHA) to
establish a statewide and uniform approach to body art
businesses and practitioners. This bill codifies AB 186,
enacted 10 years ago. 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 regulations.
2)Background . 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, allergic reactions, and
complications during diagnostic imagining such as MRI.
AB 223
Page 3
Piercing also carries risks including infection, allergies,
nerve damage, and excessive bleeding.
DPH and the California Conference of Local Health Officers
(CCLHO) have differed in their interpretation of requirements
of the original law. Per CCLHO and AB 186 requirements,
several local jurisdictions have set up the infrastructure for
regulating body art practitioners and businesses. These local
jurisdictions include Los Angeles, Orange, Monterey, San
Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Diego counties.
Other counties, including Sonoma, Kern, and Marin, are
considering adoption, but will delay if enactment of this bill
appears likely.
3) Related Legislation . AB 517 (Ma) in 2008 was similar to
this bill and was vetoed. The veto message indicates the
legislation lacked a compelling need because jurisdictions are
currently authorized to establish practices and fees. It
appears that the sponsors remain focused on improved health
and safety through statewide, uniform implementation of these
standards.
Analysis Prepared by : Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081