California Tanning Legislation

[Editor-in-Chief]

Amended Again!


Bill No: AB 105
Author: Lieu (D)
Amended: 8/28/07 in Senate
Vote: 21


SENATE BUSINESS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. CMTEE. : 5-3, 7/9/07
AYES: Ridley-Thomas, Calderon, Corbett, Denham, Simitian
NOES: Aanestad, Harman, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Florez

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-4, 8/22/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Wyland, Yee
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Battin
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dutton, Florez, Runner

ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-29, 5/29/07 - See last page for vote


SUBJECT : Tanning facilities

SOURCE : Author


DIGEST : This bill prohibits persons less than 14 years
of age from using ultraviolet tanning devices and prohibits
a person between the ages of 14 and 18 from using an
ultraviolet tanning device unless that person's parent or
legal guardian provides consent. In addition, this bill
amends the written warning statement provided to tanning
facility customers, and makes technical clarifications
regarding the use of sunless tanning machines.
CONTINUED


AB 105
Page
2


ANALYSIS :

Existing law:

1. The Filante Tanning Facility Act of 1988, requires
tanning facilities to comply with specified requirements
which include:

A. Providing a customer with a written warning
statement that contains specified admonitions
regarding the potential harms caused by tanning
devices.

B. Requiring customers to sign a written statement
acknowledging that they have read and understood the
provided warnings. The facility must retain this
statement until the end of the calendar year, at
which time the customer must renew the
acknowledgement.

C. Requiring tanning facilities to post warnings on
the dangers of ultraviolet radiation in areas where
tanning devices are used.

D. Requiring customers between 14 and 18 years of age
to give the facility a statement signed by their
parent or legal guardian stating that the parent or
legal guardian has read and understood the warnings,
consents to the minor's use of tanning devices and
agrees that the minor will use protective eyewear
provided by the facility.

E. Prohibiting persons less than 14 years of age from
using tanning devices.

2. Provides that a first violation of the Filante Act is an
infraction, any subsequent violation is a separate
misdemeanor and that a violation makes a tanning
facility liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500
per day for each violation in addition to any other
penalty established by law.

3. Prohibits the sale of tobacco products to children under


AB 105
Page
3

the age of 18, and provides both criminal and civil
liabilities for violations of the statutes.

This bill:

1. Prohibits persons less than 14 years of age from using
ultraviolet tanning devices.

2. Prohibits a person between the ages of 14 and 18 from
using an ultraviolet tanning device unless that person's
parent or legal guardian provides consent. For purposes
of consent, this bill requires the minor's parent or
legal guardian to appear in person with the minor for
the initial visit and sign a written consent form. The
written consent is valid for 12 months and may be
withdrawn at any time by the minor's parent or legal
guardian.

3. States that proof of age may be satisfied by a driver's
license or other government issued identification
containing date of birth and a photograph of the
individual.

4. Defines "tanning device" as an ultraviolet tanning
device and any accompanying equipment, including, but
not limited to, protective eyewear, timers, and
handrails.

5. Defines "ultraviolet tanning device" as equipment that
emits electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the
air between 200 and 400 nanometers used for tanning of
the skin, including, but not limited to, a sunlamp,
tanning booth or tanning bed.

6. Amends the written warning statement given to every
customer to state that persons with skin that burns
easily and persons with a family history or past medical
history of skin cancer should avoid using tanning
devices.

7. Requires tanning facilities to post warning signs in
areas where ultraviolet tanning devices are used and are
readily visible to persons using the devices and permits
the warning sign to include the following statement:

AB 105
Page
4

"Spray on tans and other sunless tanning products are
not subject to the same effects as ultraviolet tanning
devices."

8. Prohibits tanning facilities from claiming or
distributing promotional materials that claim indoor
tanning has any known health benefits.

9. Requires the timers that control the ultraviolet tanning
devices to be remotely located so that customers cannot
set their own exposure time.

Background

Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer . Ultraviolet
radiation (UVR) consists of ultraviolet A radiation (UVA),
ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and ultraviolet C radiation
(UVC). UVC is absorbed by the atmosphere but UVA and UVB
reach the earth's surface and have different effects on the
human body. UVA rays are long, relatively weak rays that
penetrate deep into the skin and cause wrinkles. UVB rays
are shorter and more intense and cause the reddening of the
skin. Tanning bulbs mimic the sun's radiation which
consists of a mixture of about 94 percent UVA and six
percent UVB rays. However, some studies show that the UVA
rays in tanning devices are stronger than those obtained
from exposure to natural sunlight.

Ultraviolet rays have been declared carcinogens by the
United States Department of Health and Human Services and
the Food and Drug Administration. The National Institutes
of Health concluded that exposure to broad-spectrum UVR,
solar radiation and sunlamps can cause cancer, based upon
sufficient evidence which indicates a causal relationship
between exposure to broad-spectrum UVR, solar radiation,
sunlamps and human cancer. Studies of humans exposed to
solar radiation, artificial devices emitting broad-spectrum
UVR or devices emitting predominantly UVA or UVB
demonstrate that exposure to broad-spectrum UVR can cause
all types of skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma, basal
cell carcinoma and melanoma).

FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes

AB 105
Page
5


According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09
2009-10 Fund

Notification Up to $52 one-time
Special*

State mandate Potential minor costs to
localGeneral
enforcement agencies, offset to
some
extent by penalty revenues*

* Board of Barbering and Cosmetology Fund

SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/07)

American Cancer Society
American Society for Dermatologic Surgery
Blue Cross of California
Blue Shield of California
Board of Barbering and Cosmetology
California Academy of Ophthalmology
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
California Protective Parents Association
California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery
California State PTA
City of Moreno Valley
Kaiser Permanente
Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc.
National Safety Council

OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/27/07)

Department of Consumer Affairs (prior version)

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "AB 105
is a public health bill intended to address the epidemic of







AB 105
Page
6

skin cancer in America and implements recommendations from
the World Health Organization, the American Academy of
Dermatology and the American Medical Association to
increase the age threshold for using ultraviolet tanning
beds to 18."

The author also states "as a society, we have placed age
limits on teens in many aspects of their lives, regardless
of parental wishes, such as drinking, smoking and voting,
yet we currently allow them to use tanning facilities with
virtually no limitations, even though we know that exposure
to ultraviolet radiation can be life-threatening and is a
classified carcinogen."

While this bill prohibits teens from using ultraviolet
tanning devices, they will still be able to utilize
facilities' sunless tanning devices which do not pose skin
cancer risks.


ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Bass, Beall, Berg, Brownley, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre,
De Leon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Emmerson, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fuentes, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Horton,
Huffman, Jones, Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine,
Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Mendoza, Mullin, Parra, Portantino,
Price, Richardson, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio,
Swanson, Torrico, Wolk, Nunez
NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill,
Blakeslee, DeVore, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia,
Garrick, Houston, Huff, Jeffries, Keene, La Malfa, Maze,
Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Silva, Smyth,
Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Duvall, Nava, Soto


JJA:mw 8/28/07 Senate Floor Analyses

SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE

**** END ****

Current Bill Version: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_105_bill_20070828_amended_sen_v94.pdf

[Editor-in-Chief]

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 105
AUTHOR(S) : Lieu (Coauthor: Emmerson).
TOPIC : Tanning facilities.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 08/28/2007


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/28/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time, amended, and to third reading.
FILE : SEN THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 08/29/2007
ITEM : 299

COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 08/22/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 10 Noes: 04 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 22702, 22705, and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to tanning facilities.

[Editor-in-Chief]

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/28/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time, amended, and to third reading.
FILE : SEN THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 09/04/2007
ITEM : 260

COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 08/22/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 10 Noes: 04 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 22702, 22705, and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to tanning facilities.

Vote scheduled to restrain Constitutional right to freedom of speech on Sept 4.

[stan@sunsys]

Does the bill still have the gag order language in it?

If so, the email I just got from Looking Fit is a piece of sh*t joke.

They are claiming "victory" in California.

How pathetic.

[Ezliving_Jim]

September 6, 2007 - Thursday

California State Senators Voted To Suspend The 1st Amendment
Current mood: angry
Category: News and Politics

California State Senators Voted To Suspend The 1st AmendmentBody: Why did California State Senators vote to suspend the Constitution's 1st Amendment Free Speech Rights in order to prevent California Tanning Salon Owners from talking publicly about the health benefits of moderate exposure to UV light from sunlight and tanning beds?

I kid you not? California Legislators voted yesterday and passed AB-105, including this regulation, and I quote:

"A tanning facility shall not claim, or distribute promotional materials that claim, that using an ultraviolet tanning device is safe or free from risk or that indoor tanning has any known health benefits."

Why are California Legislators against the public knowing about the serious epidemic of vitamin D3 deficiency and that moderate exposure to UV light cures the deficiency?

Have California Legislators lost their minds or are they just acting irresponsible?

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with 16 different deadly cancers and medical research doctors have concluded in several studies that the proven health benefits of moderate exposure to UV light far outweigh any possible risks.

Everyone agrees that overexposure (sunburn) is bad and obsessive excessive tanning is also bad. That is different from the moderate exposure in a tanning bed in the controlled environment of a tanning salon.

Professional tanning salons do not promote overexposure (sunburn) or obsessive excessive tanning. We care about our clients and friends.

We also care about our constitutional freedom to speak the truth about vitamin D3.


See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_sen_v94.html or http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...ed_sen_v94.pdf

Please repost this bulletin so as many Californians as possible can contact their state legislators before it is too late!

Any day now, the California Assembly will be voting on AB-105 and, if passed, it will then go to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature.

My Blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=307393338

Protect the 1st Amendment.

---

Apparently, the ITA will accept any anti-tanning regulation legislation that doesn't ban under 18 tanning.

I seached online to see if anyone else objected to suspending the 1st Amendment in California.

Nobody cares except you and me, Stan.

[stan@sunsys]

Well, the language still has the gaping loophole in it. It doesn't actually say salons can't inform the public about the health benifits of UVR, just indoor tanning.

It's a fine line, and the intent is there. But it is what it is.

Guess our industry fearless leaders were too afraid to touch the subject with a 10 foot pole.

BTW, I tried three times to wipe that stupid bug off my screen.

[Ezliving_Jim]

2 weeks ago I threw this issue up on digg, a very left leaning site that loves 1st amendment stuff.

http://digg.com/politics/California_...nt_free_speech

So what? Nobody cared.

I flagged Matt Drudge on it. Nothing.

(BTW, there are almost 3000 bugs on tantoday. )

[Ezliving_Jim]

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 09/06/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : Assembly Rule 77 suspended. Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment.

[Ezliving_Jim]

Maybe the Governor cares about the Constitution and will veto it.