BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 746|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 746
          Author:   Lieu (D)
          Amended:  8/30/11
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE BUSINESS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE  :  6-2, 5/2/11
          AYES:  Price, Corbett, Correa, Hernandez, Negrete McLeod, 
            Vargas
          NOES:  Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Emmerson

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  6-2, 5/26/11
          AYES:  Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
          NOES:  Walters, Runner
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Emmerson

           SENATE FLOOR  :  25-9, 6/1/11
          AYES:  Alquist, Blakeslee, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De 
            León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, 
            Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, 
            Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
          NOES:  Anderson, Dutton, Fuller, Gaines, Huff, La Malfa, 
            Strickland, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Berryhill, Cannella, Emmerson, Harman, 
            Price, Runner

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  49-27, 9/1/11 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Tanning facilities

            SOURCE  :     AIM at Melanoma Foundation
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 746
                                                                Page 
          2

                       California Society of Dermatology and 
                      Dermatological Surgery


           DIGEST  :    This bill prohibits the use of ultraviolet 
          tanning devices by persons under the age of 18.

           Assembly Amendments  restate existing law regarding the 
          exemption of the use of a photography device prescribed by 
          a physician or surgeon from this bill's prohibition.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1. The Filante Tanning Facility Act of 1988 (Filante Act) 
             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 understands 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 understands 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 







                                                                SB 746
                                                                Page 
          3

                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.  
          This bill:

          1. Prohibits persons less than 18 years of age from using 
             an ultraviolet tanning device. 

          2. Removes the consent provision for persons between 14 and 
             18 years of age.

          3. Clarifies that this bill does not prohibit a physician 
             and surgeon from prescribing the use of a phototherapy 
             device to a patient of any age.

           Comment
           
          Many states have confronted the issue of prohibiting 
          certain populations from using tanning devices.  Currently, 
          the state of Delaware does not allow a minor between the 
          ages of 14 and 18 to use a tanning device unless he or she 
          has parental consent.  Delaware law also specifies that 
          minors under the age of 14 may not use a tanning device 
          unless it is medically necessary.  The states of Illinois, 
          Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina 
          and North Dakota have similar restrictions; however, not 
          all states allow medical considerations to be taken when 
          banning that age group from using tanning devices.  Other 
          states create more stringent restrictions on the use of 
          tanning devices, such as the ban for those under 16.5 years 
          of age in Texas and those under 16 years of age in 
          Wisconsin.  

          In addition to California, several states currently have 
          bills pending in the Legislature to ban minors under the 
          age of 18 from using a tanning device, including Illinois, 
          Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New 
          York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 
          Washington.







                                                                SB 746
                                                                Page 
          4


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

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

                         Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions      2011-12     2012-13     2013-14     Fund  

          Use restriction     
          - Administration    Minor savings annually        
          Special*
          - Revenue           Unknown, likely significant 
          revenueGeneral
                              loss initially, unknown costs and 
                              savings in future years

          * State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology

           SUPPORT  :   (Per Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer 
          Protection Committee analysis - unable to reverify at time 
          of writing )

          AIM At Melanoma Foundation (co-source)
          California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery 
          (co-source)
          America Cancer Society
          American Academy of Pediatrics
          American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and Dermatologic 
          Surgery
          Anthem Blue Cross
          Association of Northern California Oncologists
          Blue Shield of California
          California Association of Health Plans
          California Medical Association
          California Nurses Association
          Kaiser Permanente
          Los Angeles County

           OPPOSITION  :    (Per Assembly Business, Professions and 
          Consumer Protection Committee analysis - unable to reverify 
          at time of writing)








                                                                SB 746
                                                                Page 
          5

          Club Tan, LLC.
          Heartland Tan
          Hollywood Tans 
          Indoor Tanning Association 
          Island Tan Tanning
          National Federation of Independent Businesses 
          Palm Beach Tan

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The California Medical Association 
          (CMA) supports this bill.  CMA believes that this bill will 
          "Protect young people from the health dangers of 
          ultraviolet radiation."  CMA further states that "Rates of 
          skin cancer, including melanoma, the most serious form of 
          skin cancer to-continue to rise, even in young people."  
          CMA cites a long history of known dangers that arise from 
          damage to the skin and eyes.  Due to these dangers, CMA 
          states, "The World Health Organization, the American 
          Medical Association, the American Academy of Dermatology, 
          and the American Academy of Pediatrics all support 
          prohibiting access to tanning salons by children."

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The Indoor Tanning Association 
          (ITA) opposes this bill.  ITA believes that this bill has a 
          negative impact on indoor tanning business statewide by 
          eliminating teens under the age of 18 from patronizing its 
          member's businesses.  ITA estimates that this group of 
          consumers makes up to five to10 percent of a tanning 
          business's customer base.  Additionally, since the majority 
          of tanning facilities are owned by women, ITA argues that 
          this would disproportionately affect female business 
          owners.  ITA also argues that tanning salons are already 
          burdened by regulations of the Department of Consumer 
          Affairs and the Food and Drug Administration.  Lastly, ITA 
          argues that the California regulations are already the most 
          stringent in the nation.
           
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  49-27, 9/1/11
          AYES:  Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, 
            Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, 
            Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, 
            Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, 
            Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, 
            Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, 







                                                                SB 746
                                                                Page 
          6

            Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, 
            Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, 
            Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
          NOES:  Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Donnelly, 
            Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Gatto, Grove, Hagman, 
            Halderman, Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, 
            Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, 
            Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Bonilla, Cook, Davis, Gorell


          JJA:kc  9/1/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****