Connecticut House Bill HB06150

Connecticut 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/17
• Refer: 1/20/17

Caption

An Act Authorizing The Suspension Of Civil Penalties For First-time Violations.

Impact

The implementation of HB 06150 could significantly alter the landscape of regulatory compliance for businesses. By allowing for the suspension of penalties, the bill fosters an environment where businesses are motivated to correct violations swiftly. Proponents argue that this will lead to better overall compliance, as businesses will feel less threatened by the financial repercussions of minor infractions. The legislative discussions surrounding the bill suggest that it is viewed as a positive step towards easing the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, which often struggle with compliance costs.

Summary

House Bill 06150 aims to provide relief for businesses that commit first-time regulatory violations by allowing state agencies to suspend civil penalties under certain conditions. The bill permits businesses to request a suspension of penalties if they can demonstrate that they have taken corrective actions within thirty days of the violation being assessed. This approach is designed to support business compliance and encourages entities to address their mistakes promptly without the added burden of financial penalties for their first offenses.

Contention

Despite its intended benefits, the bill may face criticism and potential contention regarding the criteria set for penalty suspension. For instance, penalties cannot be suspended for willful violations or those resulting in bodily injury, which raises questions about enforcement consistency and the gravity of certain infractions. Opponents might argue that this bill could allow businesses to evade responsibility for serious violations by categorizing issues as first-time infractions, highlighting concerns about regulatory leniency. Additionally, as agencies may have discretion in assessing compliance and remediation adequacy, there might be differing interpretations of what constitutes timely corrective measures.