BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 227
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 227 (Gatto) - As Amended: May 8, 2013
Policy Committee: E.S.&T.M.Vote:
7-0
Judiciary 10-0
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill provides, in specified circumstances, an alternative
to avoid litigation regarding alleged violations of the Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65).
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a person serving a notice of an alleged Prop. 65
violation-specifically the failure of a person or entity to
provide a required exposure warning-from bringing an action or
recovering any settlement, if all of the following conditions
are met:
a) The alleged violation involves exposure to any of the
following:
i) Alcoholic beverages, or a toxic chemical necessary
for the preparation of food or beverages sold for
immediate consumption.
ii) Tobacco smoke, where smoking is permitted on the
premises.
iii) Chemicals in engine exhaust inside a facility intend
for parking noncommercial vehicles.
b) Within 14 days of receiving the notice, the alleged
violator has:
i) Corrected the violation.
AB 227
Page 2
ii) Paid a civil penalty of $500, to be adjusted
annually for inflation.
iii) Served to the person filing the original notice a
statement, signed under penalty of perjury, describing
the actions taken to correct the violation.
c) The alleged violator has not been served a notice in the
previous five years regarding lack of warning regarding the
same exposures in the same facilities.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor nonreimbursable costs to the extent bill leads to
allegations and convictions of perjury.
2)Minor GF savings from a reduction in court caseloads, and
minor revenue from civil penalties, 75% of which would go to
the Prop. 65 enforcement fund.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Proposition 65, approved by the voters in 1986,
prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, from
knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a
chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly
discharging or releasing such a chemical into water or any
source of drinking water. The act imposes civil penalties upon
persons who violate those prohibitions, and provides for the
enforcement of those prohibitions by the Attorney General, a
district attorney, or specified city attorneys or prosecutors,
and by any person in the public interest.
2)Purpose . According to the author, some parties have taken
advantage of provisions in the proposition to ensnare
businesses in lawsuits, with the hope of obtaining settlement
payments.
The author states, "These lawsuits are instigated by parties
who target businesses that, for various reasons, have
neglected to display the proper Prop. 65 warning sign?
Businesses such as restaurants or coffee shops or bars -
places that must provide Prop. 65 warnings for serving baked
goods, beer, wine, or coffee, because these everyday things
AB 227
Page 3
happen to contain substances deemed to pose some health risks
- should be helped to comply with the intent of the law."
AB 227 precludes litigation as well as the payment of money in
settlement for specified alleged violations relating to
exposure to alcohol and food-related chemicals, tobacco smoke,
and vehicle exhaust, if the alleged violator has taken
appropriate remedial measures and has not committed other
prior offenses. The measure further provides that prescribed
notices must advise the alleged violators of the law in a
clear and reasonable fashion, and sets forth a mechanism for
resolution of disputes regarding the application of these
provisions and potential sanctions against the plaintiff.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081