BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
223 (Ma)
Hearing Date: 6/28/2010 Amended: 6/15/2010
Consultant: Katie Johnson Policy Vote: Health 5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 223 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.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Local Enforcement unknown, likely in the millions of
dollars Local*
Agency start-up, ongoing annually; fully supported by local fees
administration and commencing July 1, 2011.
enforcement
*LEAs would have the authority to impose fees for the
administrative and enforcement costs of this program. Although
this bill would enact a state-mandated local program, it would
not meet the criteria for state reimbursement.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
There would be minimal fiscal effect on the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH) since this bill delegates 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, 2011.
Existing law 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 the California
Conference of Local Health Officers 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.
This bill would repeal current standards by enacting the Safe
Body Art Act. The act would establish statewide restrictions on
the performance of body art and would prohibit
Page 2
AB 223 (Ma)
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 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, 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. LEAs would be permitted to charge
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.
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. An LEA would be permitted to
require entities performing this type of ear piercing to submit
a notification to the LEA and, if an LEA chose to require
notification, would have the authority to charge a one-time 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, 2013, an LEA would be permitted to charge a
different fee that would be required to cover no more than the
costs of the program.
AB 223 is similar to AB 517 (Ma, 2009), which was vetoed by the
Governor with the message: "?Body art guidelines were developed
several years ago, and local jurisdictions have the option to
establish these requirements in their own county. Many counties
have chosen to do so, and I am unaware of why the state must
take further action to regulate these businesses." AB 517 passed
out of the Senate Appropriations Committee with a vote of 8-2.