Regulatory Roundup

Salon owners and operators need to pay close attention to proposed regulation changes at all levels—not only to make sure that compliance is met, but also to ensure a voice in the process. The proposal of additions or changes to regulations at the local, county and state level has become an increasing trend, especially with regard to teen tanning. It is critically important for indoor tanning professionals to be active in working together to keep watch of proposed tanning regulations.

Last year brought an increase in proposed tanning legislation and antitanning campaigns, and it looks like 2007 will be no different. In fact, salons surveyed during LOOKING FIT’s 2007 Top 250 Salon search reported that antitanning campaigns affected their 2006 season by 16 percent. This number is up from 10 percent the previous year.

In 2006, the indoor tanning industry was besieged with anti-tanning propaganda from the media and medical communities. The two biggest issues were underage tanning and salon’s making health claims. Add to that the introduction of HR 4767, otherwise known as The Tanning Accountability and Notification Act, which was introduced to Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (RFL). The bill pushed to require the FDA to conduct consumer testing to determine the appropriateness of the current labeling requirements for indoor tanning beds. It also would have required FDA to hold public hearings, solicit comments from the public and report to Congress the determinations it makes in the study. The bill died in committee; however, many view the federal proposal as a sign of increased aggression toward indoor tanning.

Additionally, the Academy of American Dermatology (AAD) and other medical associations teamed up with cosmetic and beauty companies to wave the anti-tanning stick in the public’s eye. Just look at Cosmopolitan magazine’s 2006 multimedia antitanning crusade. Did you know it was co-sponsored by Neutrogena? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Neutrogena sells self-tanners and is taking profits from you—the professional skincare consultant.

The indoor tanning industry has a tough road ahead fighting multimillion-dollar public relations firms touting the so-called evils of tanning. It must band together as an intelligent unified voice and spread the Good News about moderate, sensible and responsible exposure to sunlight. This is the only way to take the ammunition out of the hands of the anti-tanning coalition.

It appears that the anti-tanning drum is beating earlier and louder each year. The AAD launched a highly calculated anti-tanning consumer campaign Oct. 18, 2006 targeting the indoor tanning industry. The campaign targets teenagers and consists of public service advertisements (PSAs) in which teens warn their peers against indoor tanning. This aggressive campaign had national media distribution including television, radio and print advertisements.

The AAD’s campaign speaks to teens in a language they can understand—instant messaging (IM). Approximately 53 million American computer users exchange IMs, many of whom are teens, and the Academy developed the campaign specifically to target this demographic.

Furthermore, the organization is working with Miss Maryland 2006, Brittany Lietz, to help reach its target group— teenage girls. Lietz is a skin-cancer survivor and faults indoor tanning for causing her disease. She won her state pageant with a skin-cancer awareness/ anti-tanning platform.

The outcome of the proposed legislation listed below directly affects salon owners, operators and customers in the tanning industry. It is extremely important for those in the industry to stay and informed and oppose legislation that could harm the industry. The legislative process can move very quickly in proposing and approving anti-tanning bills, therefore, response from those in the industry must be equally swift.

So far, the 2007 legislative season has been very busy for the tanning industry with the continuing issue of teenage tanning dominating proposed legislation. As of press time, there were 12 active pieces of legislation with the majority seeking to prohibit tanning of minors under age 18.

Federal. HR 945, otherwise known as The Tanning Accountability and Notification Act of 2007, was introduced Feb. 8 by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY). Co-sponsored by Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ), Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), the bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day where it currently remains.

Maloney and Brown-Waite were the sponsors of a similar bill, HR 4767, that was introduced to Congress in 2006 and died in committee.

HR 945 would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct consumer testing to determine the appropriateness of the current labeling requirements for indoor tanning devices and determine whether such requirements provide sufficient information to consumers regarding the risks that the use of such devices pose for the development of irreversible damage to the skin, including skin cancer, and for other purposes.

California. AB 105 was introduced to the California Legislative Assembly on Jan. 3 to amend Sections 22705 and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code relating to tanning facilities, also known as the Filante Tanning Facility Act of 1988.

Assemblyman Ted Lieu introduced the proposed bill that would institute further statewide restrictions for tanning salons and customers. Specifically, AB 105 would prohibit a person less than age 16 from using a tanning device, would require the parent or legal guardian of a person between ages 16 and 18 to sign the requisite consent form in the presence of a facility owner or employee, and would require that proof of age be provided.

Furthermore, the proposed bill would require tanning salons to conspicuously post warning signs and would require that a warning sign also be posted in the front or main entrance of the tanning facility. The bill would prohibit a tanning facility from claiming that indoor tanning has any known health benefits, and would require a tanning facility timer to be remotely located so that customers could not set their own exposure time.

Colorado. SB 07-023 was introduced in the General Assembly on Jan 10 by Sen. Bob Hagedorn (D) and Rep. Anne McGihon (D). The bill would amend Section 2. 25-5-1007 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and prohibit the use of an artificial tanning device by a minor under age 18 unless specifically prescribed by a physician. It also would require an owner, employee or operator of an artificial tanning device or tanning facility to verify the age of any person seeking access to an artificial tanning device. On Feb. 7 the proposed bill passed unamended from the Senate’s Committee on Health and Human Services to the Senate Committee of the Whole. On Feb. 16 the bill passed the Senate’s second reading amended. It was introduced to the House on Feb. 20 and assigned to the Health and Human Services Committee. It also passed the Senate’s third reading the same day.

Connecticut. SB 883 was introduced by Sen. Judith G. Freedman on Jan. 22 and referred to the Joint Committee on General Law. The proposed bill seeks to establish registration and regulation requirements for tanning salons. The bill would require that the general statutes be amended to establish a program of registration and regulation of tanning salons by the Department of Consumer Protection, that such regulation address issues such as equipment specification, required use of protective eyewear, posting of warnings and stringent parental consent requirements for minors and to encourage schools to include sun safety as part of grades K-12 health and science curriculum.

Indiana. SB 288 was introduced on Jan. 11 by Sen. Gary P. Dillon (R) and currently is in the Committee on Health and Provider Services. The proposed legislation would require the State Department of Health to prepare the written statement that a customer must read and sign before using a tanning bed in a tanning facility. The bill also would require the department to annually review the written statement; and allow the department to inspect tanning facilities.

Michigan. HB 4146 was introduced Jan. 30 by Rep. Frank Accavitti Jr. (D). The proposed bill would specify and require a written warning statement to be signed annually. If the tanner is under age 18 the statement must be signed by the customer’s parent of legal guardian. Among other things the bill also would require warning signs to be placed in the salon and specify the wording and size of lettering. HB 4146 currently is in the Committee on Commerce.

North Dakota. HB 1154 was introduced in the North Dakota Legislative Assembly Jan. 4 by Rep. George J. Keiser (R) and Sen. Ralph L. Kilzer (R). The bill would create and enact Chapter 23-39 of the North Dakota Century Code relating to regulation of tanning facilities and provide a penalty for violations. Among other things, the proposed legislation would institute several statewide tanning salon restrictions and would prohibit minors under age 16 from tanning indoors. It also would require facilities to prominently post a warning sign in each area where a tanning device is used about the risks of failure to use eye protection, the dangers related to overexposure, and abnormal skin sensitively to tanning devices caused by certain foods, cosmetics and medications.

HB 1154 also would also require customers to sign a statement acknowledging they have read and understand certain notices and warning signs and agree to use protective eyewear. Such statements are to be retained by the tanning facility for the lesser of three years or until the customer signs a new statement.

The bill was amended to parental consent for all persons under age 18 and persons under age 14 are not allowed to use a tanning device without a doctor’s prescription and parental supervision. The amended version passed the House on Jan. 31 and was received in the Senate on Feb. 1.The Senate read the proposed bill on Feb. 13 and referred it to Human Services.

Oregon. SB 340 was introduced Jan. 12 by Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson (D) and Sen. Bill Morrisette (D). The bill would prohibit minors age 14 or younger from using a tanning device at tanning facility. SB 340 was referred to Health Policy and Public Affairs and a Public Hearing and Work Session was scheduled for Feb. 7.

Utah. SB 52 was introduced on Jan. 12 by Sen. Patricia Jones. The original bill would have required that a parent/guardian be present each visit for minors under age 18. The bill was later amended to require that a parent/guardian come to the facility once a year. The amended bill version passed the Senate on Jan. 30and was sent to the House where it currently resides 

Vermont. H 215 was introduced on Feb. 2 by Rep. Janet Ancel (D), Rep. Harry L. Chen (D) and Rep. Carol Hosford (D). The bill would make it unlawful for a tanning facility operator to allow any person who has not reached age 18 to use any tanning equipment. H 215 is currently in Human Services Committee.

Virginia. SB 1231 was introduced Jan. 10 by Sen. Janet Howell (D). The original bill would have required that an owner shall not allow a prospective customer under age 14 to use a tanning device unless such use is authorized in writing by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy. An owner shall not allow a prospective customer who has attained the age of 14 but is under the age of 18 and is not emancipated under Virginia law to use a tanning device unless such prospective customer’s parent or legal guardian remains with such customer at the tanning facility for the duration of each visit. The bill later was amended to require the owner or his designee shall obtain every six months the signature of the parent or legal guardian of a prospective customer who is under age 15 and is not emancipated under Virginia law. The amended bill passed the Senate on Feb. 6 and was sent to the House and referred to the Committee on Commerce & Labor. SB 1231 passed the House on Feb. 21.

Washington. SB 5580 was introduced Jan. 24 by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), Sen. Karen Keiser (D) and Sen. Rosa Franklin (D). The bill would require tanning facility businesses to post cancer warning signs. The bill currently is in Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce, and Research & Development.

Mississippi. HB 957 was introduced Jan. 12 by Rep. Mary Ann Stevens (D) and referred to Public Health and Human Services. The bill, which died in committee on Jan. 30, included among other things an act to prohibit the use of tanning devices by children under age 14 and require a consent form (good for 30 days) signed in the presence of an operator for minors between ages 14 and 18.

South Dakota. SB 208 was introduced Jan. 31 by Sen. Alan Hoerth (D), Sen. Sandy Jerstad (D), Sen. Tom Katus (D), Sen. Frank Kloucek (D), Sen. Ryan Maher (D) and Rep. Thomas Van Norman (D), Rep. H. Paul Dennert (D), Rep. Bur Elliott (D), Rep. Marc Feinstein (D) and Rep. Bill Thompson (D).

The bill was referred to Health and Human Services and would have required that no customer under age 18 be permitted to use the tanning facility, require written warning statement, and have a trained operator present at the tanning facility during operating hours. The bill died Feb. 20 in the Health and Human Services Committee.

• Connecticut Raised Bill 447 requires parental consent for minors age 16 and under.
• Kentucky HB151 requires parental consent for minors under age 17 and that a parent to be present for minors under age of 14 to tan.
• New Jersey SB 1225 bans minors under age 14 from using a tanning facility.
• New York SB 2602 and AB 5733 (companion bill) bans minors under age 14 from tanning and requires signed parental consent for minors between ages 14 and 17.
• South Carolina HB 3833 eliminates the annual inspection of indoor tanning and eliminates license fees collected by the department and deposited in the state general fund.

• New Jersey AB 352 would require an additional large warning sign next to each tanning bed.

• Iowa HB 2738 would have banned tanning for minors under age 15 and would have required parental consent for teens ages 15 to 17.
• Maryland HB 1226 would have required additional warning signs and eyewear to be provided free of charge. The sponsor withdrew the bill.
• Michigan HB 4580 was a licensing bill that would have required parental consent for minors under age 18 and additional warning signs in the tanning salon.
• Minnesota SB 2566 and HB 3519 (companion bill) died in committee. The bills would have established state standards for all equipment; would have required advanced safety training for operators and parental consent for minors under age 18.
• Mississippi HB646 would have increased licensing fees from $35 to $45. The bill was amended to keep the fees at $35.
• Mississippi HB 1422 would have required parental consent for minors ages 14 to 17 and banned minors under age 14 from tanning.
• Oklahoma SB 2050 would have required licensing and inspection for all salons.
• Pennsylvania HB 548 would have required additional warning signs, parental consent for minors age 14 to 18 and a parent to be present for minors to tan under age 14. 

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 chapter. Links to these important offices can be found on www.lookingfit.com. 

Spread The Good News

Tanning critics will continue to beat their drums; however, it can be countered largely by the mounting studies favoring sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to light in a controlled atmosphere. The ITA and a handful of salon operators are doing their best to fight state tanning legislations, but they need help by salon owners stepping up to the plate and helping at the local level. If you are not a member of the ITA, please join by calling (888) 377- 0477 or visiting www.theita.com. ITA’s mission is to protect one’s freedom to acquire a tan, and strengthen and advance our industry through research, education and partnerships with organizations whose efforts further its mission. ITA is a non-profit and every dollar salons spent for ITA services is invested back in the industry. The UV Foundation also is working on some groundbreaking studies that will lend credibility to the benefits of tanning.