Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session
zinc air button cell batteries and providing penalties.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
Current law imposes restrictions on the following batteries:
1. No person may sell or offer for sale an alkaline manganese button cell battery
manufactured after January 1, 1996, unless the manufacturer has certified to the
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) that the
battery contains no more than 25 milligrams of mercury.
2. No person may sell or offer for sale any other alkaline manganese battery
manufactured after January 1, 1996, or any zinc carbon battery manufactured after
July 1, 1994, unless the manufacturer has certified to DATCP that the battery
contains no mercury that was intentionally introduced.
3. Except for a mercuric oxide button cell battery, no person may sell or offer
for sale a mercuric oxide battery unless the manufacturer informs purchasers of a
recycling or disposal site for the battery.
This bill creates a new restriction for a "zinc air button cell battery," which the
bill defines as a battery that resembles a button in size and shape and that has a zinc
anode, an alkaline electrolyte, and cathode that is capable of catalyzing oxygen when
present. The bill prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale at retail a zinc
air button cell battery manufactured after January 1, 2013, unless the manufacturer
certifies to DATCP that the battery has no mercury that was intentionally
introduced. The bill requires DATCP to compile and make available to the public a
list of zinc air button cell batteries for which it receives such a certification. Under
current law, DATCP has the same duty regarding certifications it receives for
alkaline manganese and zinc carbon batteries. A person who sells a zinc air button
cell battery at retail in violation of the bill is subject to a forfeiture of not less than
$50 nor more than $200 and a manufacturer who submits a fraudulent certification
is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000. The same
forfeitures apply to the restrictions under current law described above.
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Votes
Assembly: Report passage recommended by committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy, Ayes 6, Noes 2
Passed 6–2 Feb 29, 2012 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Feb 1, 2012 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Tranel, Suder, Ripp, A. Ott, J. Ott, Brooks, Litjens, Petryk, Spanbauer, Thiesfeldt, Krug, Rivard, Bernard Schaber, Pocan and C. Taylor;Cosponsored by Senators Olsen, Wanggaard, Schultz, Erpenbach, Hansen, Holperin, Risser and Taylor
- Feb 1, 2012 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy
- Feb 14, 2012 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Feb 15, 2012 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 28, 2012 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Feb 29, 2012 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy, Ayes 6, Noes 2
- Feb 29, 2012 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 2, 2012 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 3-6-2012 by committee on Rules
- Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 11:20 A.M. on 3-13-2012 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 22
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Laid on the table
- Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1