LOOKING FIT Hosts 1st Tanning

LOOKING FIT Hosts 1st Tanning
Regulatory Conference

by Scott Hoover

16 Regulators From 10 States Attend Conference

For months, LOOKING FIT has been keeping you up-to-date about the latest state and federal happenings through its monthly Regulatory Update section. From March 30-April 1, LOOKING FIT, along with the National Tanning Training Institute (NTTI) and the North American Alliance of Tanning Salon Owners (TSO), took the process one step further by bringing together 16 regulators from 10 states for the 1st Tanning Regulatory Conference held in Phoenix. This event, the first ever of its kind in the indoor tanning industry, allowed regulators and salon owners to meet face-to-face and discuss topics that will be instrumental in continuing the growth of the indoor tanning industry.

Attitudes Shift Toward Indoor Tanning

TSO representatives talk to regulators about their concerns.

As the indoor tanning industry enters the 21st century, there are a number of factors that have become evident even to the most novice salon operator. First and foremost, education continues to play a vital role in allowing the industry to increase its professionalism--not only from a salon owner's perspective, but also from a manufacturer and distributor perspective. Second, the industry as a whole has learned how important it is to work with both the federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, as well as state, county and city regulators.

"LOOKING FIT is pleased to have been able to host the first ever regulatory conference of this kind," says Jenny Bolton, publisher of LOOKING FIT. "The dialogue offered was very positive. In addition, state regulators, as well as salon owners, appreciated the chance to discuss their ideas, experiences and concerns in an open forum. Finally, everybody in attendance was there for the same reason--the continued well-being of the tanning public. If a meeting such as this achieves one step toward that goal--it will have been more than worth it for everybody involved."

Don Smith, executive director of the TSO agreed.

Oregon Regulator Phil Wilson and NTTI Technical Director Rick Mattoon.

"This conference is an important step for the indoor tanning industry," says Smith. "While tanning salon owners assume the legal, moral and ethical responsibility to look out for the best interests of the clients who patronize their salons, we must understand and accept that regulators (in regulated states) have the mandated responsibility of making sure we live up to our obligations."

It was with this understanding that items such as standardized training requirements, the possibility of uniform regulations in all states, a uniform minimum tanning age, discussion concerning the current exposure schedule, standardized client release form, Uniform Biological Efficacy Rating Scale (UBERS), educating the tanning client, lamp compatibility and minimum fallow period were discussed during the two-day event.

"It was refreshing to learn that the regulators in attendance welcome participation from tanning salon owners and encourage them to communicate with them," says Smith. "This free flow of information is encouraging for the entire industry."

North and South Carolina regulators compare notes.

In addition to the 12 regulators representing seven regulated states, four regulators from non-regulated states (Minnesota, Alaska, Kansas and Maine) also were present at the conference to review ideas and bring information back concerning possible future regulations.

"We are here to pick the brains of the regulators from regulated states so that when we return home we can present the most pertinent information to our agency," says Gaye Mullen of the Radiation Control Program in Maine. "We don't want to reinvent the wheel. This conference allows us to find out what is working in regulated states and what regulations are not working before we even begin the process."

Finally, in order to allow regulators to understand a little more about the indoor tanning industry, John Abaté™ International provided a complete tour of its manufacturing plant in Scottsdale, Ariz., followed by a JA™-sponsored dinner at Scottsdale's own Rawhide Restaurant & Saloon and Western Town.

The professionalism and cleanliness seen at the JA plant provided regulators with a positive impression of the supply side of the indoor tanning industry.

Summary Of The Agenda

Regulators say the round-table discussions were especially important.

Tanning Terminology
Smith presented a list of standardized tanning terminology to the group. He discussed exposure-related items, essential UVR-related terms, the measurement of UVR and related terms, skin pigmentation terms, skin cancer-related terms and other skin conditions. In addition, Smith discussed the National Tanning Research Laboratory and its evolving role in the indoor tanning industry. One of the first projects the National Tanning Research Laboratory will undertake is lamp compatibility testing.

"The regulators in attendance are as frustrated as the tanning salon owners are with the lamp compatibility issue," Smith notes. "I think the attendees are encouraged by the creation of the National Tanning Research Laboratory and the fact that lamp compatibility will be the first project undertaken by this facility."

Additionally, the lab also will be working to verify an updated exposure schedule, researching tanned skin vs. untanned skin, vitamin D production studies, sunlight vs. tanning unit similarities and differences, sunscreen studies and lotion studies. Finally, Smith talked about conducting research on the minimal sunburn dose as well as using the Ultraviolet Index as a guide.

The western town at Rawhide was a hit.

Client Release and Informed Consent Form
Salon owner Pat Reykdal discussed the possibility of constructing or adding to an already existing client release and informed consent form that could be used by all salon owners in all states, both regulated and non-regulated. Although a number of regulators brought up the fact that most regulated states possess their own release forms, they were interested in the possibility of using one universal form. Regulators also were questioned whether the medication and photosensitizing list should be included on any form.

Skin Typing/Subtyping
Reykdal also discussed the need for a more consistent skin typing system and, specifically, proposed a skin type/subtype system for discussion and review. Reykdal explained how the present skin typing system has evolved from its early beginning and the fact that Schulze Skin Typing System, the Fitzpatrick (PUVA Therapy) Skin Typing System and the Cesarinin (European PUVA Therapy) Skin Typing System, all were introduced for medical use and none of them, understandably, gave any consideration to the requirements of a modern indoor tanning salon. Unlike the three current skin typing systems, the Reykdal/Smith Skin Typing System, currently being used in her salon, has evolved specifically for the indoor tanning industry and subtypes those individuals who have the lowest tolerance to UVR (skin types II and III) in order to optimize the exposure time for their initial tanning session.

TSO Executive Director Donald L. Smith and Jenny Bolton

Uniform Biological Efficacy Rating Scale For Sunlamps
Rick Mattoon, training director of NTTI, and Smith discussed a possible Uniform Biological Efficacy Rating Scale (UBERS) for Sunlamps, the Ultraviolet Index and the UVC for monitoring sunlamps. Smith explained that currently there is no consistency for lamp manufacturers to follow which makes it hard for regulators to know whether a bed is compliant.

"I came away from the conference with a belief that tanning salon owners, as well as regulators, must push the FDA to agree upon an UBERS for sunlamps and products containing sunlamps," Smith says. "Information regarding UBERS was requested in the FDA's recent ANPRM; however, I believe that my proposal was the only one submitted. I made a commitment during this conference to renew my efforts to do what I can to help resolve this issue because we must have an UBERS agreement in order to resolve both the lamp compatibility and exposure schedule issues."

Attendees enjoy dinner at Rawhide courtesy of JA™ International.

Exposure Schedule
Smith opened up the floor to discussion on some of the problems with the current exposure schedule. He highlighted the fact that all skin types have exactly the same exposure schedule, which means that there is no allowance for the known increase in tolerance to UVR enjoyed by individuals with darker natural skin color and those with an acquired tan. Therefore, a skin type V would have the same initial session time as would a skin type II. In addition, he pointed out that the FDA acknowledged this problem in its ANPRM issued in February 1999.

Smith introduced the Neither/Nor exposure schedule concept that he proposed to the FDA. The exposure schedule is based on a formula devised by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Weather Service for determining the UVI that is used to guide citizens worldwide on ambient sunlight levels of intensity. The UVI formula makes it possible to determine the minutes to sunburn.

Jenny Bolton with Arizona Regulators Bill Wright and John Lamb.

Minimum Tanning Age
A review of various state regulations showed there is no consistency in the minimum age requirement for clients of indoor tanning salons. In addition, it was pointed out that federal regulations and guidelines are silent on this point.

"I am often asked by tanning salon owners and operators for advice on minimum tanning ages in states that do not offer specific regulations, and even in states that only offer vague guidelines," Mattoon told the group. "Obviously, it is a concern for those owners who need some type of guidance in this area. I feel it is time for specific studies to be conducted so as to produce standardized guidelines that will assist salon owners in offering the most responsible solutions available."

Salon owners who were present agreed and pointed out that parents believe they should have the final say regarding the age at which their child can tan at an indoor tanning salon. They point out that there is nothing to gain by taking a child on vacation untanned and having them sunburn. In addition, most salon owners also have their own minimum age when one is not required by the state where their salon is located. Both regulators and salon owners agreed that no matter what the minimum age requirement may be, it is important to educate the parents about the possible benefits and dangers of tanning. Additionally, regulators were impressed with the introduction of SunWellness, the only consumer publication for the indoor tanning industry, and the magazine's educational possibilities for the end-user--the tanning public. Many of the regulators agreed SunWellness would be a good vehicle to inform tanning clients about regulations.

Regulators who attended felt the conference allowed them to see all sides of the indoor tanning industry. In addition to the 16 regulators from 10 states, representatives from TSO, NTTI and LOOKING FIT also were present.

Fallow Period
Smith brought up the fact that some labels on tanning units are silent regarding a recommended fallow period between tanning sessions; others make a recommendation and others make an instructive statement that the tanner is to allow 48 hours between tanning sessions. It was announced that TSO has requested that all manufacturers adopt a uniform, non-instructive label statement that mentions only a 24-hour fallow period.

Salon Operator Training
Mattoon discussed the possibility of having salon operator training be standardized to conform with the needs of both tanning salon owners and state regulatory agencies. An example was given of having each salon employee complete basic training within 30 days of employment and complete an intermediate class within one year of employment. State regulators also discussed the differences between various state regulations and requirements on training.

"In today's indoor tanning environment, being a professional means more than just doing your job," Mattoon notes. "Our industry must have a standardized training program to keep up with changing technology and to ensure we are tanning clients both consistently and responsibly."

In addition, after completing the written agenda topics, regulators held spirited discussions on the individual inspection process of each state regulator, the problems faced when salon owners are found to be using UVB lamps and, for the states that are in the process of writing regulations, what initiated the establishment of indoor tanning regulations in each regulated state.

The Future

What did this conference mean to salon owners and state regulators. Clearly, for the first time ever, it allowed numerous state regulators to discuss state policies and why these regulations are in place. Additionally, it also opened up the dialog between salon operators and state regulators and allowed them to discuss industry topics in an open forum. "It's clear to me that the majority of tanning salon owners have not participated in the process that leads to state regulations and that this fact must change," states Smith. "We can make a difference in the regulations that govern tanning salons if we all make an effort to get involved in our own state process."

LOOKING FIT also will continue to contribute to this process with a new monthly regulatory column. Watch for this in future issues.

From Our Guests

Here is a sampling of some of the letters that have been received from state regulators who attended the 1st Tanning Regulator Conference in Phoenix March 30-April 1.

This was a very worthwhile trip and it was especially gratifying to discover how well organized and succinct the program was.

Clyde E. Pearce
Chief, Radiological Health
State of Alaska

This conference allowed us to see how other states regulate the tanning industry. We feel conferences such as this one will allow for better communication and understanding between state regulators and salon operators.

Charles G. Ditmer, Section Manager
Nonionizing Radiation
Division of Electronic Products
Bureau of Radiological Health
State of South Carolina

Open dialog with other state regulators, salon owners, training personnel and the tanning industry in a neutral environment was enlightening and beneficial. It is obvious that both the regulator and the regulated have the best interest of the user in mind.

William A. Wright, Program Manager
Radioactive Materials/Nonionizing Compliance
State of Arizona