California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 693 — Proposition 65: enforcement.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 65 at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election, prohibits a 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 into or onto land and passing into any source of drinking water, except as specified. 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. The act also provides for enforcement by an action brought by any person in the public interest, if that private action is commenced more than 60 days after the person has given notice of the violation that is the subject of the action to the Attorney General and the district attorney, the city attorney, or the prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and to the alleged violator. If the notice made by a person bringing an action in the public interest alleges a violation of the act's warning requirement, the act requires that the notice include a certificate of merit stating that the person executing the certificate has consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical that is the subject of the action, and that, based on that information, the person believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action. The act requires factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on the Attorney General. This bill would require the same factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on each alleged violator. (2) The act requires, if there is a settlement of an action brought by a person in the public interest, the plaintiff to submit the settlement, other than a voluntary dismissal in which no consideration is received from the defendant, to the court for approval upon noticed motion, and authorizes the court to approve the settlement only if the court makes specified findings. This bill would require, for all settlements generated by alleging a violation of or threatening to allege a violation of the act, the plaintiff or person acting in the public interest to submit those settlements to the court, and would additionally require the court, in order to approve the settlement, to find that neither the plaintiff nor the attorney representing the plaintiff has received any compensation from the alleged violator unless that compensation is disclosed in the settlement or in a prior court-approved settlement and is authorized by applicable law. (3) The act requires a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for certain specified exposures to provide a notice to the alleged violator in a specified proof of compliance form, and prohibits an enforcement action from being filed by that person, and the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements from the alleged violator, if the notice to the alleged violator alleges a failure to provide a clear and reasonable warning for those specified exposures and, within 14 days after receiving the notice, the alleged violator corrects the alleged violation, pays a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per facility or premises, and notifies the person bringing the action that the violation has been corrected. This bill would prohibit an enforcement action from being filed, and the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements from the alleged violator, by a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for an exposure in a food product by a supplier or distributor of the food product if the supplier or distributor, among other things, labels the food product with the warning required by the act and submits an affidavit to the Attorney General stating that the food product was labeled with the warning, within 14 days after service of notice. (4) Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M.

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S. & T.M. Read second time and amended.

  6. Referred to Coms. on E.S. & T.M. and JUD.

  7. From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.

  8. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Chau · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Chau

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 693 do?
(1) The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 65 at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election, prohibits a 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 into or onto land and passing into any source of drinking water, except as specified. 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. The act also provides for enforcement by an action brought by any person in the public interest, if that private action is commenced more than 60 days after the person has given notice of the violation that is the subject of the action to the Attorney General and the district attorney, the city attorney, or the prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and to the alleged violator. If the notice made by a person bringing an action in the public interest alleges a violation of the act's warning requirement, the act requires that the notice include a certificate of merit stating that the person executing the certificate has consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical that is the subject of the action, and that, based on that information, the person believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action. The act requires factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on the Attorney General. This bill would require the same factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on each alleged violator. (2) The act requires, if there is a settlement of an action brought by a person in the public interest, the plaintiff to submit the settlement, other than a voluntary dismissal in which no consideration is received from the defendant, to the court for approval upon noticed motion, and authorizes the court to approve the settlement only if the court makes specified findings. This bill would require, for all settlements generated by alleging a violation of or threatening to allege a violation of the act, the plaintiff or person acting in the public interest to submit those settlements to the court, and would additionally require the court, in order to approve the settlement, to find that neither the plaintiff nor the attorney representing the plaintiff has received any compensation from the alleged violator unless that compensation is disclosed in the settlement or in a prior court-approved settlement and is authorized by applicable law. (3) The act requires a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for certain specified exposures to provide a notice to the alleged violator in a specified proof of compliance form, and prohibits an enforcement action from being filed by that person, and the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements from the alleged violator, if the notice to the alleged violator alleges a failure to provide a clear and reasonable warning for those specified exposures and, within 14 days after receiving the notice, the alleged violator corrects the alleged violation, pays a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per facility or premises, and notifies the person bringing the action that the violation has been corrected. This bill would prohibit an enforcement action from being filed, and the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements from the alleged violator, by a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for an exposure in a food product by a supplier or distributor of the food product if the supplier or distributor, among other things, labels the food product with the warning required by the act and submits an affidavit to the Attorney General stating that the food product was labeled with the warning, within 14 days after service of notice. (4) Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65.
Who sponsors AB 693?
AB 693 is sponsored by Chau.
What is the current status of AB 693?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 693?
Track AB 693 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 693

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 693

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →