Regulation Roll Call

Regulation Roll Call

It is important for salon owners and operators to pay close attention to proposed regulation changes at all levels—not only to make sure that compliance is met, but to ensure a voice in the process.

After the FDA’s Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standard Committee (TEPRSSC) heard a proposal in October 2003 for rule changes associated with indoor tanning, the FDA last year was given the green light to develop amendments to the U.S. performance standard for sunlamp products. Current rules that are being considered for change include revised warning labels, addition of warning labels to all indoor tanning purchasing information, modification of the definition of eyewear, more stringent limits on eyewear effectiveness, adoption of maximum timer setting of 3 MEDs, and implementation of coding systems for sunlamps.

Changes in federal regulations occur at a much slower rate than state regulations. However, the great impact of the federal regulations cannot be overstated because they affect salon operations nationwide. Before final acceptance of any changes, FDA must submit a proposal for final acceptance. The public comment period has not yet been established. The next TEPRSSC meeting is scheduled for Oct. 4, 2006.

The proposal of additions or changes to regulations at the state level has become an increasing trend, especially with regard to teens. It is critically important for indoor tanning professionals to be active in working together to keep watch of proposed tanning regulations.

To learn more about federal and state regulations, see listings for FDA District Office Addresses, State Radiation Control Offices and Legislative Hotline Numbers in this issue. FDA regulations also can be viewed at www.tanningtraining.com under “Regulatory Updates.”

The following is a recap of the activity seen in 2005 and recently introduced bills in 2006.

Connecticut Raised Bill 979 died March 22, 2005. The bill would have required parental consent for persons under the age of 16 to tan.

Connecticut Proposed Senate Bill 555 died April 4, 2005 in committee. Introduced January 2005, the bill would have required the Department of Public Health to establish licensing requirements for tanning facilities. It would have prohibited tanning operators from making certain health or medical claims; prohibited operators from misleading or deceiving the public about tanning devices; prohibited persons under the age of 14 from using tanning devices without the written consent of a physician; and would require tanners aged 14 to17 to be accompanied by a parent on each visit to the tanning facility.

Connecticut Proposed Senate Bill 298 died April 4, 2005 in committee. The bill would have prohibited anyone under age 18from tanning indoors without written consent from a parent or guardian.

New York Assembly Bill 1599 would have increased consumer-safety standards for ultraviolet tanning facilities, would have required the consent of a parent or legal guardian for anyone under age 18 to tan. It also would have required equipment to comply with the standards in the code of federal regulations; standards for maintenance of equipment; and standards for instruction, sanitation, protective goggles, warnings signs and statements, and record-keeping. The bill died in the Codes Committee on Jan. 4, 2006.

New Jersey Senate Bill 2658 would have prohibited minors under age 15 from tanning, and would have required written parental consent for minors aged 14 to 18 to tan. An identical bill, Assembly Bill 3353, was introduced Oct. 7, 2004. Both bills died Jan. 6, 2006.

Kentucky H152 would prohibit minors under age 14 from tanning, and would require signed parental consent to tan for minors aged 14 to 18 in the presence of a tanning operator. The consent would be valid for 30 days, and the parent or guardian would be required to state the number of times the minor is allowed to tan during the 30-day period. The bill also calls for salons to retain certain records for a specified time period.

Mississippi HB1422 would prohibit minors under age 14 from tanning, and would require signed parental consent to tan for minors aged 14 to 18, in the presence of a tanning operator. The consent would be valid for 30 days, and the parent or guardian would be required to state the number of times the minor is allowed to tan during the 30-day period. The bill also calls for salons to retain certain records for a specified time period.

New Jersey A352 would require facilities to conspicuously post a warning notice. The bill further provides specification for the placement and location of the signage. 

New Hampshire 729-FN was passed into law April 22, 2004 and became effective on Jan. 1, 2005. The regulations address licensing requirements, age-related parental consent and other procedural matters. The new rules require operators to complete a state-approved training program. Each salon is responsible for maintaining a list of the facility’s operators who have been trained in accordance with the rules.

New Hampshire House Bill 168 deals primarily with the licensure of electrologists and lowers the allowable age for tanning operators to persons age 16. The House objected to the Senate’s original amendment, and the bill was sent to a special committee for resolution. The Legislature agreed to a compromise by way of a grandfather clause that states: “A person age 16 or older who, prior to Jan. 1, 2005, has been certified by a program that was subsequently approved by the board shall be an operator ... .” It is important to note that only those persons age 16 or older on Jan. 1, 2005 and who were certified prior to Jan. 1, 2005 may continue to be employed as an operator in the state’s tanning salons. The bill was signed into law July 22, 2005.

Florida: Proposed revisions were made to state tanning rules, which became effective May 10, 2005. Significant changes include the addition of definitions to help clarify the rule language; an annual application no longer will be required; permission was given for persons to use tanning devices once per 24-hour period; and sanitizers must be checked for sufficient concentrations using test strips or other devices that accurately measure in parts per million. In addition, the state’s tanning application was revised.

Nassau County (N.Y.): Lawmakers unanimously passed legislation on April 4, 2005 requiring signed parental consent for persons under age 18 to tan, and requiring persons under age 16 to be accompanied by a parent to tan.

Westchester County (N.Y.): Lawmakers passed legislation December 2005 banning teens under the age of 16 from tanning. The bill also requires persons aged 16 to 17 to receive written permission to tan from a parent or guardian. The permission form must be signed in the presence of a salon owner or operator. The bill also mandated rules regarding warning notices.

Active Legislation 
The following is a list of active legislation as of press time.

New Jersey Assembly Bill 976 requires tanning facilities to conspicuously post warnings stating, “Indoor tanning has no known health benefits” and “Prolonged exposure to UVA and UVB rays may cause damage to the skin and eyes.”

New York Senate Bill 2602 and New York Assembly Bill 5733 are identical and were introduced February 2005. The bills require persons to sign a written acknowledgement prior to tanning; would require persons aged 14 to 18 to receive parental consent to tan, and would ban minors under age 14 from tanning. SB 2602 is currently in the Health Committee and Assembly Bill 5733 is currently in the Rules Committee.

Illinois House Bill 452 was amended from its original form to mirror existing regulations. The bill would prohibit tanning for anyone under age 14, and would require parental consent for minors aged 14 to18. The original bill would have prohibited anyone under age 18 from using tanning facilities for any reason, and required tanning facilities to take “appropriate steps” to enforce the ban. The bill is currently in the Senate Rules Committee.

Pennsylvania House Bill 548 was introduced February 2005 and deals with salon licensing and an inspection program. The bill is currently in the Rules Committee.

Minnesota Senate Bill 1114 was introduced Feb. 21, 2005 and requires parental consent for minors aged 14 to18 to tan. Minors under age 13 would be allowed to tan only with written permission from a physician and must be accompanied by a parent who must remain at the facility during the length of the tanning session. The bill is currently in the Commerce Committee.

Georgia House Bill 702 was introduced March 3, 2005 and stipulates additional statements be required on warning signs to include information on medications and photosensitivity. The bill also requires minors aged 14 to18 to have parental consent to tan, and minors under age 14 to be accompanied by a parent. The bill is currently in the Regulated Industries Committee.

Suffolk County (N.Y.) Resolution 1789 requires written parental consent to tan for minors aged 14 to 18. The consent must state the period of time for which the minor is permitted to use the tanning devices, and shall not be retained by the tanning facility for a time period to exceed six months. The resolution also would prohibit minors under age 14 from using a tanning device unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who must remain physically present at all times. Two similar resolutions were tabled earlier in the year.

Michigan House Bill 4580 was introduced March 24, 2005 and requires tanners to sign a written statement at least once annually to be retained by the tanning facility for a minimum 12- month period. For minors under the age of 18, the statement must be signed by the minor’s parent or legal guardian. The bill also gives specifications for injury reports. The bill is currently in the Committee on Health Policy.

Canadian Regulations 

Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh announced March 7, 2005 amendments to the Radiation Emitting Devices Regulations (tanning equipment) that modernize current standards to address the new technology being used for today’s more powerful tanning devices. The regulations came into effect Feb. 23, 2005 upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Under the authority of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Regulations (sunlamps) were introduced in 1980 to restrict users’ time of exposure to sunlamps. New technology and tanning equipment designs, in addition to recent scientific studies, showed that the 1980 requirements needed to be updated to ensure safer use of the new equipment.

These regulations apply only to equipment sold or resold after the amendments came into force. They are not retroactive. Health Canada inspectors will continue compliance monitoring and enforcement under the authority of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and its regulations.

It is imperative that salon owners and operators stay current with all federal, state and local regulations affecting the indoor tanning industry, as they affect not only salons’ day-to-day operations— but the entire industry. Therefore, it is important for salon operators to take an active role in the legislative process and help ensure that industry concerns are heard regarding current and proposed federal, state and local indoor tanning regulations.

In order to help provide state and local authorities with a starting point for their rule formation, CRCPD—the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors—has developed a set of model regulations known as suggested state regulations (SSRs). CRCPD is a national organization comprised of directors of radiation-control programs from each state.

In July 2003, the SSR-9-Tanning Facilities Part BB Committee completed a version of the Draft Part BB, Recommended Regulations for Indoor Tanning Facilities.

The draft completed peer review in December 2004 and was forwarded to the Office of the Executive Directors (OED) for review. Once it is reviewed by the OED, the draft will go before the CRCPD board for a final approval vote.

Once accepted, the draft will become the official revised CRCPD SSRs for tanning. The official revised regulations would serve as a set of model regulations available for states and local authorities.

Lawmakers are increasingly lobbying for stricter tanning regulations, so it is more important than ever for salon operators to have a voice in the decision-making process. To do this, they must be aware of proposed changes, and then take proactive steps.

Salon owners should read through federal regulations thoroughly, and contact the nearest FDA office (listed at www.tanningtraining.com) with any questions. They also should make sure to check with state and local authorities for regulations that exist at those levels. State inspectors can help with questions on state compliance.

Industry organizations such as the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) actively work to monitor and fight anti-tanning legislation. The ITA recommends that salon owners get to know their state senators and representatives, and also to contact the association if they hear about any potential legislation.

By understanding and ensuring compliance with mandatory regulations on federal, state and local levels, and by taking a proactive approach in the legislative process, salon operators can help shape the future of the industry.