HB1549

I respectfully submit the following legal concerns regarding the proposed amendment. First, reducing the inspection penalty to a nominal amount does not satisfy federal inspection and maintenance requirements. Under 40 CFR § 51.361(b)(2)(ii)(C), a sticker-based enforcement program must impose monetary fines at least equal to the estimated cost of compliance. A one-dollar penalty does not meet that standard and would likely be viewed as noncompliance rather than enforcement. Enacting such a provision risks creating an additional Clean Air Act violation rather than curing an existing one. Second, provisions that single out a specific company for adverse treatment raise serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution expressly prohibits states from passing bills of attainder. Legislation that identifies a particular entity by name and imposes punishment or disability without a judicial proceeding falls squarely within the conduct that clause is intended to prevent. At a minimum, such provisions invite heightened constitutional scrutiny and litigation risk. Finally, weakening enforcement mechanisms while targeting a specific contractor does not reduce the State’s legal exposure. It increases the likelihood of further federal and constitutional challenges and may compound, rather than resolve, the issues currently before the courts. For these reasons, I urge careful consideration of whether the proposed amendment is consistent with federal law, constitutional limits, and the State’s long-term legal and fiscal interests.