BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 646 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 646 (Pavley) As Amended June 20, 2011 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :30-5 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 7-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Campos, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Bonnie Lowenthal, Valadao | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Miller, Morrell |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Deletes the exemption from enforcement provisions of the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law for the signatories to the amended consent judgment, People v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, et al. Makes other technical changes to statute. EXISTING LAW under the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law: 1)Prohibits the manufacture, shipping, sale, or offering for sale or promotional purposes of jewelry, children's jewelry, or jewelry used in body piercing that is not made entirely from certain specified materials (specified limits of lead and cadmium). 2)Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to enforce the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law and specifies penalties for violations. 3)Provides that a party that is a signatory to the amended consent judgment, or a party that is signatory to a consent judgment entered in the consolidated action entitled People v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, et al. SB 646 Page 2 (Alameda Superior Court Lead Case No. RG04-162075) that contains identical or substantially identical terms as provided in the amended consent judgment, is exempt from enforcement pursuant to the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law, and instead is subject to enforcement provisions of the amended consent judgment. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of the bill may result in negligible costs to DTSC, which currently inspects jewelry retailers, importers and suppliers that are signatories to the judgment and those that are not. It also may result in increased penalty revenue of an unknown amount resulting from enforcement activity against signatories who violate the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law. (Special fund.) COMMENTS : Need for the bill : According to the author, "In California, concentrations of lead in jewelry were sharply limited (Health and Safety Code §§ 25214.1 - 25214.4.2). Enforcement of this law began in 2007. Review of the enforcement data reveals a significant loophole. Existing law allows a large and increasing number of businesses to bypass much of the statutory enforcement provisions and avoid financial penalties for violations. This bill amends current law to remove this loophole and provide enforcement equity for violations to all." Background : AB 1681 (Pavley), Chapter 415, Statutes of 2006, created the Lead-Containing Jewelry Law, which prohibited the manufacture, shipping, sale, or offering for sale of jewelry, children's jewelry, or jewelry used in body piercing that is made from materials with more than specified levels of lead. AB 2901 (Brownley), Chapter 575, Statutes of 2008, among other things, strengthened and expanded DTSC's enforcement authority for the Lead-Containing Jewelry Law. SB 929 (Pavley), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2010, added prohibitions for jewelry containing cadmium to the Lead-Containing Jewelry Law, updating the statute to become the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law. Under the law, DTSC may impose an administrative or civil penalty against violators of the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law, not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation. AB 1681 (Pavley) intended to impose a standard for the amount of SB 646 Page 3 lead allowed in jewelry that was equivalent to that allowed in the settlement that had been reached between the California Attorney General (AG) and several California-based retailers (People v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, et al.). Because the bill was being considered at the same time that the settlement of the AG's case was being finalized, the author agreed to codify the terms of the agreement in the bill and exempt the signatories from the Lead-Containing Jewelry Law, with the belief that both the law and the settlement would have the same effect. The intent was to hold California retailers that were not parties to the lawsuit to the same standards as those that were. The Metal-Containing Jewelry Law has, however, essentially created a two-tiered system for enforcing lead in jewelry violations. The amended consent judgment limits its enforcement to only the AG or the plaintiffs (Center for Environmental Health and As You Sow). DTSC has authority to enforce provisions of the law only for violators that are not parties to the amended consent judgment. The limited enforcement provisions of the amended consent judgment have created an incentive for additional jewelry retailers and wholesalers to add onto the amended consent judgment to avoid enforcement under the stricter Metal-Containing Jewelry Law. In 2006, when the settlement was first announced, there were a total of 113 signatories to the amended consent judgment. Since that time, 126 additional parties have negotiated with the AG and have been added to the settlement, with additional cases being negotiated that may result in more parties being added. Adding to the consent judgment virtually exempts companies from having to comply with the lead provisions of the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law. This bill removes the exemption for signatories to the amended consent judgment from the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law and evens the playing field for all California manufacturers, suppliers and retailers. Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 SB 646 Page 4 FN: 0001953