New Eyewear Regulations in Ohio

CancunRayz · 05-23-2002, 09:05 AM

Don,
While we are on the topic of eyewear, the New Ohio State Board of Cosmetology "Tanning Rules" effective January 1st, 2002 now read the following:

[(18) PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR
The permit holder shall provide protective eyewear to each consumer for use during any use of tanning equipment. This protective eyewear shall meet the requirements of 21 CFR part 1040, Section 1040.20 (C)(5). The permit holder shall ensure that the protective eyewear required by this rule is properly sanitized before each use, is not altered in any way, and shall not rely upon exposure to the ultraviolet radiation produced by the tanning equipment itself to provide such sanitizing and be adequate for the protection of the consumer's eyes. (Ref.: 4713-19-04(E))

Each operator shall perform the following function as a precondition to access of the tanning facility to the public: The operator shall provide to each person desiring to use a tanning facility presanitized units and protective eyewear. (Ref.: 4713-19-05 (B)(1) These rules mean the facility shall have free eyewear for customers use, which does not exclude the facility from offering eyewear for sale. Operators are responsible to ensure customer owned eyewear is also sanitized prior to use.]

We understand the need to provide eyewear whether presantitized or disposible. According to the ITA, they have a problem (and so do we) with the last statement regarding sanitizing customer owned eyewear.

Don, don't you think this leaves a salon owner liable for any eyewear issues?

Kent

Don Smith · 05-23-2002, 10:01 AM

Kent:

The Ohio reg's state that "Operators are responsible to ensure customer owned eyewear is also sanitized prior to use" and I have the following comments.

1. That is CLEARLY an unreasonable requirement and I will write a letter of protest to the Ohio Department of Cosmetology. The fact of the matter is that no tanning salon owner in ANY state can "force" the OWNER of the eyewear device (the client) to do anything with it. IF the State of Ohio wants this provision to be enforced, they must pass a law that "requires" the citizens of Ohio do give them to you for sanitizing. This is yet another example of a bureaucracy acting outside of the scope of their authority.

2. In the meantime, turn lemons into lemonade and set up an area for clients to "sanitize" their eyewear.

FYI, this issue is like where various states have tried to make the salon owner "responsbile" for making sure that the tanner actually "uses" eyewear while tanning. Unless and until the state passes a law "authorizing" tanning salons to install "peep holes" and to "violate" the tanners privacy, a tanning salon owner can obviously not "verify" that they are, in fact, using protective eyewear.

All that can be done in regard to both of these issues is to make a "best effort" to assure compliance.

Hope this helps.

Don

Chippp · 05-23-2002, 12:13 PM

The gov out of control again.

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-23-2002, 07:04 PM

The Ohio Board that passed the new laws last year has an opthamologist on their committee. The opthamologist was concerned that tanners bringing in their own eyewear were 1)not inspecting it for loose lenses, etc and 2) were not disinfecting the eyewear and were infecting themselves by built-up bacteria from multiple uses (think of your toothbrush) and storing them in unsanitary conditions such as a purse or gym bag.

If the salon is providing disposable or disinfected eyewear, there is no issue. But if the tanner buys their own eyewear, it must be disinfected before they can get in the bed with it. The law was set up to provide a safer environment for the tanner and I'm sure that's what we all want for our clients.

If you have questions on this new law (and by the way, the new Ohio laws are extensive in many areas) you can call Terry Tomlin at 1-614-644-6134 and get clarification for your salon. Remember to document your conversation so you can back it up when the inspector comes to your salon!

Brenda

BooBop · 05-23-2002, 07:30 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:The Ohio Board that passed the new laws last year has an opthamologist on their committee. The opthamologist was concerned that tanners bringing in their own eyewear were 1)not inspecting it for loose lenses, etc and 2) were not disinfecting the eyewear and were infecting themselves by built-up bacteria from multiple uses (think of your toothbrush) and storing them in unsanitary conditions such as a purse or gym bag.

Yes Brenda, we do want the best for our clients, but a regulation that states "WE" must disinfect a clients "personal" eyewear is going to far. We can not be responsible for how they treat their personal property. It should be amended IMHO.
Once showing people your counter mat and they choose to purchase their own goggles, then I think it is up to them to keep them clean. and I also tell them to keep them in a baggie. But the rest is up to them. Don't you think?

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-23-2002, 08:10 PM

Mitzi,

I don't agree with the law, I was just explaining how it came about.

Just to be honest, as a business in the business of selling eyewear, I will sell more products if the salon sells eyewear instead of provides it. This is true for all eyewear manufacturers.

The ITA has been working hard for several months to have this law changed. You may want to contact their offices to see how you can best join their efforts.

Don Smith · 05-23-2002, 08:47 PM

Brenda:

As I read the words "Operators are responsible to ensure customer owned eyewear is also sanitized prior to use" it would mean that an "operator" would also be required to "sanitize" disposable "customer owned" eyewear "prior to use". There is nothing in the Ohio reg's to differentiate between disposable and reusable eyewear that I can find.

So, how does one go about "sanitizing" (actually "disinfecting" - see below) disposable eyewear "prior to use", Brenda?

Also, the Ohio reg is wrong, wrong, wrong! Our obligation is to provide eyewear that have been "cleaned and disinfected" not just "cleaned and sanitized". Why? because when we disinfect a sunbed or eyewear device, we make sure that it does not harbor pathogenic (disease producing) organisms. Sanitizing does not convey the elimination of pathogenic organisms.

My letter to Teri Tomlin will cover both of these points.

Don

[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-23 20:49 ]

Brenda at Eye Pro · 05-23-2002, 08:55 PM

Don,

When you use Wink-Ease or Viewkeepers for the first time, its new and so it does not need to be disinfected. If it was used a second time, it would fall under their guidelines.

The ITA has been working on the sanitizing/disinfecting point and the personal eyewear having to be cleaned by a salon. You'll note it my post above I used disinfected, since I am well aware of the difference! But I think it's important to bring that point home.

BooBop · 05-23-2002, 10:00 PM

Brenda, I didn't think you were agreeing with the regulation. Only giving my 2 cents worth.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Canadian Tanning Equipment Regulations Updated	Ezliving_Jim	Canadian	0	03-07-2005 04:47 PM
State Regulations regarding Ballast	CancunRayz	Equipment	2	05-31-2002 05:41 PM
Fluorescent Lamps Disposal	CancunRayz	Equipment	3	05-31-2002 01:01 PM
room temperature regulations in ohio	Chippp	Salon Management	2	06-04-2001 02:02 PM
Regulations concerning protective eyewear	Chippp	Salon Management	7	05-25-2001 11:33 PM

05-23-2002, 09:05 AM	#1 (permalink)
CancunRayz Join Date: Feb 20 2002 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Age: 45 Posts: 140 Rep Power: 7	Don, While we are on the topic of eyewear, the New Ohio State Board of Cosmetology "Tanning Rules" effective January 1st, 2002 now read the following: [(18) PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR The permit holder shall provide protective eyewear to each consumer for use during any use of tanning equipment. This protective eyewear shall meet the requirements of 21 CFR part 1040, Section 1040.20 (C)(5). The permit holder shall ensure that the protective eyewear required by this rule is properly sanitized before each use, is not altered in any way, and shall not rely upon exposure to the ultraviolet radiation produced by the tanning equipment itself to provide such sanitizing and be adequate for the protection of the consumer's eyes. (Ref.: 4713-19-04(E)) Each operator shall perform the following function as a precondition to access of the tanning facility to the public: The operator shall provide to each person desiring to use a tanning facility presanitized units and protective eyewear. (Ref.: 4713-19-05 (B)(1) These rules mean the facility shall have free eyewear for customers use, which does not exclude the facility from offering eyewear for sale. Operators are responsible to ensure customer owned eyewear is also sanitized prior to use.] We understand the need to provide eyewear whether presantitized or disposible. According to the ITA, they have a problem (and so do we) with the last statement regarding sanitizing customer owned eyewear. Don, don't you think this leaves a salon owner liable for any eyewear issues? Kent

05-23-2002, 10:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,597 Rep Power: 10	Kent: The Ohio reg's state that "Operators are responsible to ensure customer owned eyewear is also sanitized prior to use" and I have the following comments. 1. That is CLEARLY an unreasonable requirement and I will write a letter of protest to the Ohio Department of Cosmetology. The fact of the matter is that no tanning salon owner in ANY state can "force" the OWNER of the eyewear device (the client) to do anything with it. IF the State of Ohio wants this provision to be enforced, they must pass a law that "requires" the citizens of Ohio do give them to you for sanitizing. This is yet another example of a bureaucracy acting outside of the scope of their authority. 2. In the meantime, turn lemons into lemonade and set up an area for clients to "sanitize" their eyewear. FYI, this issue is like where various states have tried to make the salon owner "responsbile" for making sure that the tanner actually "uses" eyewear while tanning. Unless and until the state passes a law "authorizing" tanning salons to install "peep holes" and to "violate" the tanners privacy, a tanning salon owner can obviously not "verify" that they are, in fact, using protective eyewear. All that can be done in regard to both of these issues is to make a "best effort" to assure compliance. Hope this helps. Don

05-23-2002, 12:13 PM	#3 (permalink)
Chippp Join Date: Apr 19 2001 Posts: 2,556 Rep Power: 8	The gov out of control again.

05-23-2002, 07:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	The Ohio Board that passed the new laws last year has an opthamologist on their committee. The opthamologist was concerned that tanners bringing in their own eyewear were 1)not inspecting it for loose lenses, etc and 2) were not disinfecting the eyewear and were infecting themselves by built-up bacteria from multiple uses (think of your toothbrush) and storing them in unsanitary conditions such as a purse or gym bag. If the salon is providing disposable or disinfected eyewear, there is no issue. But if the tanner buys their own eyewear, it must be disinfected before they can get in the bed with it. The law was set up to provide a safer environment for the tanner and I'm sure that's what we all want for our clients. If you have questions on this new law (and by the way, the new Ohio laws are extensive in many areas) you can call Terry Tomlin at 1-614-644-6134 and get clarification for your salon. Remember to document your conversation so you can back it up when the inspector comes to your salon! Brenda

05-23-2002, 07:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
BooBop I love Derf!! Join Date: Apr 5 2001 Posts: 9,496 Rep Power: 13	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote:The Ohio Board that passed the new laws last year has an opthamologist on their committee. The opthamologist was concerned that tanners bringing in their own eyewear were 1)not inspecting it for loose lenses, etc and 2) were not disinfecting the eyewear and were infecting themselves by built-up bacteria from multiple uses (think of your toothbrush) and storing them in unsanitary conditions such as a purse or gym bag. Yes Brenda, we do want the best for our clients, but a regulation that states "WE" must disinfect a clients "personal" eyewear is going to far. We can not be responsible for how they treat their personal property. It should be amended IMHO. Once showing people your counter mat and they choose to purchase their own goggles, then I think it is up to them to keep them clean. and I also tell them to keep them in a baggie. But the rest is up to them. Don't you think?

05-23-2002, 08:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	Mitzi, I don't agree with the law, I was just explaining how it came about. Just to be honest, as a business in the business of selling eyewear, I will sell more products if the salon sells eyewear instead of provides it. This is true for all eyewear manufacturers. The ITA has been working hard for several months to have this law changed. You may want to contact their offices to see how you can best join their efforts.

05-23-2002, 08:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,597 Rep Power: 10	Brenda: As I read the words "Operators are responsible to ensure customer owned eyewear is also sanitized prior to use" it would mean that an "operator" would also be required to "sanitize" disposable "customer owned" eyewear "prior to use". There is nothing in the Ohio reg's to differentiate between disposable and reusable eyewear that I can find. So, how does one go about "sanitizing" (actually "disinfecting" - see below) disposable eyewear "prior to use", Brenda? Also, the Ohio reg is wrong, wrong, wrong! Our obligation is to provide eyewear that have been "cleaned and disinfected" not just "cleaned and sanitized". Why? because when we disinfect a sunbed or eyewear device, we make sure that it does not harbor pathogenic (disease producing) organisms. Sanitizing does not convey the elimination of pathogenic organisms. My letter to Teri Tomlin will cover both of these points. Don [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-23 20:49 ]

05-23-2002, 08:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
Brenda at Eye Pro Join Date: Jun 29 2001 Location: Fort Wayne IN Posts: 234 Rep Power: 8	Don, When you use Wink-Ease or Viewkeepers for the first time, its new and so it does not need to be disinfected. If it was used a second time, it would fall under their guidelines. The ITA has been working on the sanitizing/disinfecting point and the personal eyewear having to be cleaned by a salon. You'll note it my post above I used disinfected, since I am well aware of the difference! But I think it's important to bring that point home.

05-23-2002, 10:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
BooBop I love Derf!! Join Date: Apr 5 2001 Posts: 9,496 Rep Power: 13	Brenda, I didn't think you were agreeing with the regulation. Only giving my 2 cents worth.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)