Safe Drinking and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: appeal: notice to the Attorney General.
Impact
The bill enhances the enforcement mechanism of Proposition 65 by requiring explicit notification to the Attorney General during appellate proceedings. It strengthens the role of the Attorney General in overseeing compliance with laws intended to protect public health from exposure to toxic chemicals. Changes like these could lead to a more rigorous application of Proposition 65, potentially affecting businesses’ operations related to chemical disclosures and compliance. The civil penalties that can be imposed for violations remain significant, with fines reaching up to $2,500 per day for each violation, reflecting a serious deterrent for non-compliance.
Summary
Assembly Bill 1123 amends Section 25249.7 of the Health and Safety Code, which is part of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65. This amendment aims to refine the procedural requirements related to the enforcement of Proposition 65 violations. Specifically, the bill mandates that, in appellate proceedings concerning alleged violations, parties must serve their briefs on the Attorney General. This change is intended to ensure that the Attorney General is kept informed of enforcement actions and can participate effectively in relevant appeals.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding AB 1123 appears to be generally supportive among public health advocates who believe that tighter regulation and enforcement of toxic exposures will benefit community health outcomes. However, concerns have been raised among businesses regarding the potential for increased litigation and regulatory burdens. Opponents argue that while the intent of the amendment is positive, it could lead to an overreach of authority and increased legal challenges that complicate compliance for small businesses.
Contention
A notable point of contention about AB 1123 centers on the balance between protecting public health and ensuring that businesses do not face undue legal challenges. Critics point to potential increases in litigation as a result of the amended procedural requirements, which could be burdensome for companies already facing complex compliance landscapes. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that the bill merely clarifies existing procedures and enhances compliance measures, thereby promoting better public health outcomes.