Overview
Title
To direct the National Park Service to pursue options for the provision of mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen or other protective methods at low or no cost in national parks.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to help people in national parks stay safe from the sun by finding ways to give them special sunscreen that doesn't hurt the environment, either for free or at a very low cost. It also plans to team up with businesses or groups to make this happen and think about how it might affect nature.
Summary AI
H.R. 10527 aims to direct the National Park Service to find ways to offer mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen and other protective sun methods at low or no cost in national parks. The bill highlights concerns about skin cancer risks and promotes public-private partnerships or nonprofit collaborations to provide these sun protection options. A report to Congress is required within a year, discussing potential partnerships, environmental impacts, and proposals for further legislative support to enhance sun protection efforts in national parks.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
House Bill H.R. 10527, also known as the “Sunscreen in Parks Findings Act” or the “SPF Act,” seeks to promote public health by enhancing sun protection options at national parks in the United States. The bill calls for the National Park Service to explore provisions for distributing mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen at low or no cost. It emphasizes the need for partnerships with private entities or nonprofit organizations to accomplish this goal, aiming to make sun protection more accessible to park visitors. Moreover, the legislation mandates the National Park Service to submit a detailed report to Congress regarding the feasibility and strategies for implementing these measures within one year of the bill’s enactment.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill is driven by findings that skin cancer risks are prevalent across all demographics and that effective sun protection needs awareness and accessibility. However, there are some points that require clarification:
Lack of Actionable Measures: Although the findings highlight critical statistics and behaviors related to sun exposure and cancer risk, the bill lacks specific legislative actions or regulations that would directly lead to improved sunscreen usage or protective behavior among park visitors.
Criteria for Partnerships: The bill does not clarify how partnerships will be formed, raising concerns about transparency and the potential for favoritism. Clear criteria would help ensure fair and effective collaborations.
Definition of Sunscreen: The term "mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen" is not clearly defined, potentially leading to varied interpretations that could affect procurement and compliance.
Environmental and Budgetary Impacts: Potential environmental impacts from distributing sunscreen in parks are not sufficiently addressed, and the fund allocation from the National Park Service's existing budget remains unclear.
Impact on the Public
From a public perspective, the bill aims to enhance public health by reducing skin cancer risks through increased availability of sun protection measures at national parks. By providing low-cost or free sunscreen, especially mineral-based options recommended for their lower health risks, the legislation could potentially lead to a healthier populace more informed about sun safety practices. However, the lack of clarity in actionable measures might delay or dilute the bill’s impact.
Impact on Stakeholders
General Public: Visitors to national parks could benefit significantly from accessible sun protection resources, decreasing their risk of sun-related health issues. The bill encourages responsible sun safety, which could foster long-lasting behavior changes and improve public understanding of sun protection's importance.
National Park Service: The service’s role in implementing the bill could be burdensome without additional funding or resources. Moreover, the potential requirement to stock specific types of sunscreen might strain their budget, impacting other park services or initiatives.
Private and Nonprofit Sectors: These entities stand to gain from possible partnerships with the National Park Service, which could enhance their public profile and contribute to public health efforts. However, without clear guidelines, the selection process for these partnerships might favor certain entities or be criticized for lack of transparency.
In conclusion, while the SPF Act sets a positive tone towards increasing sun protection measures in national parks, there are several areas requiring further refinement to ensure effective execution and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders involved.
Issues
The section 'Findings' lacks clarity on the specific actions Congress intends to take based on the findings, potentially leading to a lack of actionable measures to improve sunscreen usage or sun protection awareness without a detailed legislative or regulatory framework. (Section 2)
The bill does not specify the criteria or process for selecting public-private or nonprofit partnerships for the provision of sunscreen in national parks, which could lead to favoritism or lack of transparency in implementation. (Section 3)
The term 'mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen' is not explicitly defined, which might lead to differing interpretations regarding product specifications and could create potential issues in procurement and compliance. (Section 3)
The mention of the National Park Service and some States providing free sunscreen stations could imply potential funding allocations, but it is unclear if this would involve federal funding or how it would be distributed, potentially impacting other park services or planned expenditures. (Section 2)
There might be potential environmental impacts associated with distributing sunscreen in national parks that are not addressed in the bill, especially if not carefully managed or monitored. (Section 3)
Potential favoring of certain sunscreen types without substantiated comparison data against alternatives could raise questions regarding the basis for these product recommendations and might suggest bias towards specific products. (Section 2)
The feasibility and monitoring of equitable usability of sunscreen, such as ensuring sunscreen blends with all skin tones, are not clearly outlined, which could pose challenges for equitable implementation and usability. (Section 3)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states that the official title of the law is the “Sunscreen in Parks Findings Act” or the “SPF Act”.
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress presented findings about skin cancer, highlighting that skin protection is essential for everyone, regardless of skin color. The document emphasizes that effective sun protection involves using broad-spectrum sunscreens, especially those recommended by the FDA and National Park Service, and pairing them with additional methods like reducing sun exposure and wearing protective clothing. It also points out that many Americans have misconceptions about sun safety, with some states proactively providing free sunscreen in parks and encouraging national parks to promote more sun protection measures.
3. Report to Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Director of the National Park Service is required to submit a report to Congress within a year, detailing ways to offer low-cost or free mineral-based sunscreen at national parks through various partnerships and funding options. The report will also explore potential environmental impacts, inclusivity of the sunscreen for all skin tones, awareness plans about sun protection, and suggest legislative actions to support these efforts.