AB 300 (ma) is in place and that is that. AB 223 (ma) was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. It was said that there were too many restrictions in the bill or in other words things were very detailed and it was felt that more of a gray area was needed. AB 300 (ma) was sponsored and supported by the body art industry. For tattoo artists to bitch about the fact that it is in place is to go against their own industry.
California has been ripe for this to happen for quite some time. Surrounding states have very strict guidelines for tattooing. Oregon and Nevada come to mind. Try tattooing in Oregon, or in Las Vegas and then complain about the regulations in California. It is about time that the tattoo industry protect our clients and our industry. There are counties in California that do not have any regulations at all. This has resulted in a kind of wild west type of mentality. People that tattoo out of their garage, kitchen, house, alley, etc. openly advertise and compete with professional tattoo studios. Artists and studios must deal with a constant attack from people who are not regulated in any manner. This bill will benefit artists that are clean reputable artists because it will help protect them from scratchers.
I see this bill as a chance to help make my area (Stanislaus County) a better place to live and tattoo. Step by step we are pulling our county together. There is a dedicated group of artists in the Stanislaus County area that are ready to get to work and help clean up our county. We have training centers and instructors in place, we have clean reputable studios that have been following the guidelines of the bay area because this area does not have any guidelines. We have submitted the guidelines from the counties that have solid studios with some history behind them.
What can clients expect from all of this? Clean studios, clean artists, less access to scratchers, prices may increase a little because of the cost of AB 300 (ma). The cost increase will not be drastic at all because the state has set a maximum that the county level can charge.
What can studios and artists expect? Studios and artists will have to purchase a permit to tattoo, be certified in Blood Born Pathogens, First Aid, CPR, and meet the guidelines set forth by the county. The guidelines would set in place the need for an autoclave, schedules for autoclave testing, clean sinks separate from bathrooms, etc. The reputable studios in the area have all these things in place already so there may not any difference in how they run their business. Release forms are mandatory as is keeping those forms private and on record for two years. Sterilization procedures will have to be followed, an exposure plan will have to be posted and submitted to the county. Liability insurance may be required if you do not have it already. APP guidelines for piercing will most likely be mandatory. This should not be something that sinks your studio. This should be a bonus to you for all your hard work and a reward for following those guidelines all these years. You will be ready and your competition will not be ready–bonus for you. Scratchers will have a much harder time because they will face fines for non-compliance.
We will keep you up-to-date on the situation here with our county in the up coming months. We will have our ASHE safety training center up and running in a month. We are certified instructors in Blood Born Pathogens, First Aid, CPR, and AED. We felt that it was vital our artists have access to up-to-date training and certifications. Below is an excerpt of AB 300 (ma) and other commentary…
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
trash bags 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
trash bags 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.
AB 300 (Ma)
Safe Body Art Act.
Under existing law, every person engaged in the business of tattooing, body piercing, or permanent cosmetics is required to register with the county in which that business is conducted, obtain a copy of the county?s sterilization, sanitation, and safety standards, as established by the California Conference of Local Health Officers and distributed by the State Department of Public Health, as specified, and pay a one-time registration fee of $25. Existing law allows the county to charge an additional fee, if necessary to cover the cost of registration and inspection, and allows a county to adopt regulations that do not conflict with, or are more comprehensive than, standards adopted by the department.
Under existing law, a person who fails to register or who violates the sterilization, sanitation, and safety standards is liable for a civil penalty of up to $500, to be collected in an action brought by the prosecuting attorney of the county or city and county in which the violation occurred.
This bill would, as of July 1, 2012, repeal these provisions and, instead, enact the Safe Body Art Act. The act would prohibit a person from performing body art, as defined, without registering annually with the local enforcement agency. The bill would require practitioners to comply with specified requirements, including, among other things, client information and questionnaires, vaccination, blood borne pathogen training, and sanitation. The bill would also require the owner of a body art facility, as defined, to obtain and annually renew a health permit from the local enforcement agency, as specified, and to maintain the body art facility in a specified manner.
This bill would exempt from the definition of body art the piercing of an ear with a disposable, single-use, pre-sterilized stud or solid needle that is applied using a mechanical device to force the needle or stud through the ear, but would impose specified requirements on that practice. The bill would authorize a local enforcement agency to require facilities performing ear-piercing in that jurisdiction to submit a notification form, as provided, with the local enforcement agency.
The bill would authorize the local enforcement agency to charge a one-time facility notification fee in an amount between $25 and $45, but not in excess of the amount required to cover the actual costs of administering and enforcing the program. The bill would authorize a county, after December 31, 2015, to charge a different fee, established by local ordinance, so long as an increased fee amount is necessary to cover the actual costs of administering and enforcing the provisions.
This bill would regulate the performance of body art in vehicles, temporary booths, and at body art events. The bill would require a person sponsoring a body art event to obtain a permit and fulfill specified requirements and would authorize a local enforcement agency to establish reasonable regulatory fees, including, but not limited to, a fee for body art events in an amount not to exceed, but sufficient to cover, the costs of enforcement.
The bill would authorize specified inspection by an enforcement officer, and would provide for the suspension or revocation of a certificate of registration or a health permit in specified circumstances. The bill would make performing body art without being registered, operation of a body art facility without a health permit, or operation of a temporary body art event without a permit a misdemeanor and would authorize the local enforcement agency to assess an administrative penalty, in an amount not less than $25 and not more than $1,000, for violating a provision of the bill. The bill would also authorize the local enforcement agency, in addition to these penalties, to impose a penalty of up to three times the cost of the registration or permit on a practitioner, owner of a body art facility, or sponsor of a temporary body art event who fails to obtain needed permits.
This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt regulations or ordinances that do not conflict with, or are more stringent than, the provisions of the bill as those provisions relate to body art. Because this bill would place the inspection and enforcement requirements on local governments and because it creates a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
C/S
Scotchie Chapman
