Connecticut House Bill HB05500

Connecticut 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/29/16
• Refer: 2/29/16
• Report Pass: 3/18/16
• Refer: 4/1/16
• Report Pass: 4/7/16
• Engrossed: 4/30/16
• Report Pass: 4/30/16

Caption

An Act Authorizing The Suspension Of Civil Penalties Imposed On Certain Business Entities Pursuant To Regulations.

Impact

If enacted, HB 5500 could significantly impact how state agencies enforce business regulations. By providing a mechanism for penalty suspension, the bill aims to encourage businesses to comply with regulations by allowing them to address violations promptly. This could lead to improved relationships between businesses and the state, as companies would feel they have a second chance to correct mistakes before facing punitive measures. However, it is important to note that the bill does not apply to willful or grossly negligent violations, as well as situations causing bodily harm or those tied to federal law requirements.

Summary

House Bill 5500 authorizes the suspension of civil penalties imposed on certain business entities by state regulatory agencies under specific circumstances. The bill outlines a provision allowing state agencies to suspend penalties for a first violation if the business entity takes corrective actions within thirty days of the penalty assessment. The legislative intent behind this measure is to foster compliance and provide businesses with a fair opportunity to rectify violations without facing immediate financial burdens from penalties.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 5500 appears to be generally supportive among legislators and business groups. Supporters argue that the bill creates a more accommodating regulatory environment that allows businesses to thrive while still adhering to important regulations. Nonetheless, there may be critics concerned that such leniency could lead to a lack of accountability for businesses, potentially undermining public safety or regulatory standards if misapplied.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding the bill involve the balance between facilitating business growth and ensuring regulatory compliance. Critics may argue that allowing for the suspension of penalties could create a perception of leniency that might encourage negligence among some business entities. On the other hand, proponents emphasize the necessity of providing businesses the opportunity to make amends for minor infractions without incurring harsh financial penalties, which could help sustain economic activity and growth in the state.