BILL ANALYSIS �
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