Ohio Senate Bill 25 proposes amendments to sections 4713.50, 4713.51, and 4713.64 of the Ohio Revised Code with the primary aim of prohibiting tanning facility operators and employees from allowing individuals under the age of 16 to use sun lamp tanning services. The bill also modifies existing consent requirements for minors aged 16 and 17 and outlines related responsibilities of the State Cosmetology and Barber Board.
Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:
1. Prohibition of Tanning Services for Individuals Under 16:
- The central tenet of the bill is a direct prohibition on tanning facilities allowing individuals younger than 16 to use sun lamp tanning services.
- The bill explicitly states: “(B)(1) A tanning facility operator or employee shall not allow an individual who is less than sixteen years of age to use the facility’s sun lamp tanning services.” (Lines 14-16)
- This represents a stricter regulation compared to the current law, which, based on the introduced language, appears to have allowed tanning for this age group under specific parental consent and presence requirements. The proposed bill removes this possibility entirely.
2. Modified Consent Requirements for Individuals Aged 16 and 17:
- For individuals aged 16 but under 18, the bill retains the requirement for parental or legal guardian consent but specifies that this consent must be obtained “each time the individual seeks to use the facility’s sun lamp tanning services.” (Lines 24-27) This is a significant change from the current language which allowed consent valid for 90 days with a limit of 45 sessions.
- The bill further mandates that for this age group, “The form must be signed in the presence of the operator or an employee of the tanning facility.” (Lines 28-30)
- Notably, the requirement for a parent or legal guardian to be present at the tanning facility for the duration of each session for 16 and 17-year-olds, as it appears in the “As Introduced” version, seems to have been removed or is worded differently than the outright prohibition for those under 16. This needs further clarification based on the existing laws being amended.
3. Consent Requirements for Adults (18 and Older):
- The bill maintains the requirement for adults to provide consent before using sun lamp tanning services.
- “(C)(1) A tanning facility operator or employee shall not allow an individual who is eighteen years of age or older to use the facility’s sun lamp tanning services without first obtaining the consent of the individual.” (Lines 17-20)
- Crucially, the bill specifies that “The consent is valid indefinitely.” (Line 22), which suggests a one-time consent requirement for adults.
4. Consent Form Development and Content:
- The bill tasks the State Cosmetology and Barber Board with developing a standardized consent form.
- “The state cosmetology and barber board shall develop a form for use by tanning facility operators and employees in complying with the consent requirements of division (B) of section 4713.50 of the Revised Code.” (Lines 60-63)
- The form must include information about the health risks associated with sun lamp radiation, specifically mentioning the potential link to skin cancer: “The form must describe the potential health effects of radiation from sun lamps, including a description of the possible relationship of the radiation to skin cancer.” (Lines 63-66)
- The Board is required to consult with the Department of Health, dermatologists, and tanning facility operators in developing this form and make it available on their website.
5. Enforcement and Disciplinary Actions:
- The bill amends section 4713.64 regarding disciplinary actions that the State Cosmetology and Barber Board can take.
- A key ground for disciplinary action is the “Failure to comply with the safety, sanitation, and licensing requirements of this chapter or rules adopted under it” (Lines 73-75), which would now include the prohibition on tanning for those under 16 and the modified consent procedures.
- The Board has various disciplinary options, including denying, revoking, or suspending licenses, imposing fines, and requiring corrective action courses.
- The bill outlines specific procedures for disciplinary actions, including adjudications under Chapter 119 of the Revised Code, exceptions for certain criminal convictions, and the possibility of consent agreements.
- Specific fine amounts are detailed based on the number of previous offenses for various violations, including those related to compliance with section 4713.50. For example, “(F) In the case of an offense of failure to comply with division (A) or (B)(2) or (3) of section 4713.50 of the Revised Code, the board shall impose a fine of five hundred dollars if the violator has not previously been fined for that offense.” (Lines 173-177)
6. Electronic Signatures for Consent:
- The bill explicitly allows for the use of electronic signatures for providing consent.
- (D) For purposes of division (B) of this section, an electronic signature may be used to provide and may be accepted as a signature evidencing consent.” (Lines 54-56)
Impact and Potential Discussion Points:
- Public Health: The primary intent of the bill appears to be to protect minors from the potential long-term health risks associated with ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure from tanning beds, particularly the increased risk of skin cancer.
- Tanning Industry: The proposed changes, especially the outright ban for those under 16 and stricter consent requirements for 16 and 17-year-olds, could significantly impact the tanning industry by reducing their potential customer base.
- Parental Rights: Discussions might arise regarding parental rights and the extent to which the state should regulate activities involving minors when parental consent is involved. However, the bill emphasizes the protection of children’s health.
- Enforcement: The effectiveness of the prohibition will depend on the diligent efforts of tanning facility operators and the oversight of the State Cosmetology and Barber Board.
- Consistency with Other States: It would be beneficial to compare Ohio’s proposed regulations with those in other states regarding tanning bed use by minors.
Conclusion:
Senate Bill 25 represents a significant step towards restricting sun lamp tanning services for minors in Ohio. By prohibiting tanning for those under 16 and imposing stricter consent requirements for 16 and 17-year-olds, the bill aims to mitigate the potential health risks associated with indoor tanning. The State Cosmetology and Barber Board will play a crucial role in developing the required consent forms and enforcing these new regulations. The potential impact on the tanning industry and the balance between state regulation and parental autonomy are key discussion points that may arise as this bill progresses through the legislative process.