When you get your hair cut or your nails done in California, you know that your stylist or manicurist has attended school, received a license and is maintaining the businesses up to legally mandated standards.

You can even check the records online.

But if you decide to get a tattoo or body piercing, you'd have no such reassurance, because California doesn't regulate body art practitioners.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, wants to change that. She also wants to ban the tattooing of anyone under age 18 - regardless of whether a parent consents.

Citing the health risks - dirty needles can lead to such diseases as HIV and hepatitis, plus other infections - as well as the prevalence of body art, Ma has reintroduced a bill that would re-create a regulatory framework for tattoo and piercing parlors. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill last year and has not yet taken a position on the latest legislation, according to a spokesman.

But this time, Ma said, she hopes to win his support by getting the body art community on board, as well as local health departments. The Association of Professional Piercers is backing the measure, as are individual tattoo artists and environmental health officials, including the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health.

Health risks

Ma has some personal ties to the issue: she has lived with hepatitis B her entire life, after contracting it from her mother, and has cosmetic tattoos on her eyebrows.

"This is one bill that I feel the governor should have signed, due to the tremendous health risks involved with dirty needles, all of the diseases and blood-borne illnesses that can be transferred," she said. "There are practitioners that are not trained, and there are all these young people going in and getting tattoos. For me it's about protecting the next generation."

Current state law simply requires piercing and tattoo shops to register with their county, obtain a copy of local regulations and pay a $25 fee. But, according to Ma's office, only six jurisdictions statewide, including San Francisco, have their own regulations.

The proposed bill both sets some statewide standards and allows for more stringent local rules, as well as setting penalties for not complying.

It would require shops to register annually with a law enforcement agency and pay a fee, set at the local level, to cover the cost of the program. Piercers and tattoo artists would also have to individually register, and show proof of a hepatitis B vaccine, completion of a federally overseen blood-borne pathogen training program as well as first-aid and CPR training. And body artists would be required, like cosmetologists, to post proof of their registration at work. Temporary expositions would face similar rules.

The law would allow police and health officials to randomly inspect body art shops, and suspend a permit if the law is violated. It spells out a hearing process, makes it a misdemeanor to violate the law and sets fines of up to $1,000.

The bill also requires a client to sign a consent form that includes information about how to care for a piercing or tattoo and fill out a medical history form that includes questions such as whether the person has been diagnosed with herpes or is at risk of exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Businesses must keep the information confidential.

Shop owner favors bill

Paul Stoll, who opened the piercing and tattoo shop Body Manipulations 21 years ago in San Francisco's Mission District, is a staunch supporter. He said the proposal will level the playing field for shops like his, that already spend money to ensure a sanitary environment, well-trained workers and high-quality jewelry, and others who may be cutting corners.

Stoll said the current lax rules make it difficult for people who want to do things right.

"They make it an easy business to (open), but don't give any guidance for properly setting up a facility. I don't mind following rules," he said.

And, he added, the proposal would even help in cities that have existing regulations.

"Even here in San Francisco there are unsafe practices ... because the only thing the city can do is take away a permit," he said.