BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Kevin Murray, Chairman

                                           1681 (Pavley)
          Hearing Date:  8/17/06          Amended: 6/12/06
              as proposed to be amended (LCR 19804)
          Consultant:  John Decker        Policy Vote: EQ 5-2
          BILL SUMMARY:   AB 1681 would prohibit the manufacture or sale  
          of jewelry in California unless it is in a Class 1, 2 or 3  
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2006-07      2007-08       2008-09     Fund
           Penalty revenue gain              $100        $100      Special
          DTSC to sample                       300         300    Special


          STAFF COMMENTS:  Suspense File.  as proposed to be amended.
          This bill prohibits the manufacture or sale of jewelry in  
          California unless it is a Class 1 (contains no lead), Class 2  
          (contains metal with less than 10 percent lead) or Class 3  
          (contains less lead than 600 parts per million).  The  
          prohibition would be in effect on September 1, 2007 for jewelry  
          for children and March 1, 2008 for all jewelry.  

          If a manufacturer or seller exceeds the lead limits, the state  
          may impose a civil penalty. Staff expect an increase in penalty  
          revenue of about $100,000 per year.

          The bill also requires the Department of Toxic Substances  
          Control (DTSC) to sample jewelry sold or made in California.  To  
          sample, the department is likely to incur annual costs of about  

          The author's proposed amendments direct the penalty revenue to  
          the Hazardous Waste Control Account and cite the bill's  
          provisions as consistent with the amended consent judgment of  


           People  v  Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation  .