[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 6548

November 16, 1988

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29--state funding of information relating to hazardous chemicals in workplace furnished by local units of government

1986 PA 80, which requires a large class of persons, corporations and local units of government to furnish to workers information relating to hazardous chemicals in the workplace, does not impose a new activity or service upon local units of government under Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, as implemented by MCL 21.231 et seq; MSA 5.3194(601) et seq.

Honorable Harry Gast

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion on two questions, the first of which may be stated as follows:

Does 1986 PA 80 impose requirements on local governments which would be considered a "new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law" according to Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, as implemented by MCL 21.231 et seq; MSA 5.3194(601) et seq?

The Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, provides in part:

"A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law shall not be required by the legislature or any state agency of units of Local Government, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed to pay the unit of Local Government for any necessary increased costs."

The Legislature is expressly authorized by Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 34, to implement the Headlee Amendment. Pursuant to that mandate, the Legislature has implemented Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, to define the term "state requirement" in MCL 21.234(5); MSA 5.3194(604)(5):

" 'State requirement' means a state law which requires a new activity or service or an increased level of activity or service beyond that required of a local unit of government by an existing law. State requirement does not include any of the following:

.............................................................

...................

"(g) A requirement of a state law which applies to a larger class of persons or corporations and does not apply principally or exclusively to a local unit or units of government."

1986 PA 80 amended Secs. 5, 11, 31, and 63 of, and added Secs. 14a-14m to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.1001 et seq; MSA 17.50(1) et seq (MIOSHA). Its purpose is to protect the health and safety of workers by providing access to information on hazardous chemicals in the workplace. House Legislative Analysis, HB 4111, January 22, 1986. (1)

MIOSHA applies to all places of employment in the state, except in domestic employment and in mines. MCL 408.1002; MSA 17.50(2). "Place of employment" is defined as "a factory, plant, establishment, construction site or other similar area, workplace, or environment where an employee is permitted to work." MCL 408.1006(1); MSA 17.50(6)(1). "Employer" is defined as "an individual or organization, including the state or a political subdivision, which employs 1 or more persons." MCL 408.1005(2); MSA 17.50(5)(2).

Since the requirements of MIOSHA, in general, and 1986 PA 80, in particular, apply to a large class of persons or corporations and do not apply principally or exclusively to a local unit or units of government, 1986 PA 80 does not impose a "state requirement" upon local units of government as provided in MCL 21.234(5)(g); MSA 5.3194(604)(5)(g).

It is my opinion, in answer to your first question, that 1986 PA 80 does not impose requirements on local governments which would be considered a "new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law" according to Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, as implemented by MCL 21.231 et seq; MSA 5.3194(601) et seq.

Your second question may be stated as follows:

Does the requirement of MCL 408.1014i; MSA 17.50(14i), as added by 1986 PA 80, constitute a "new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law" on local governments according to Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, as implemented by MCL 21.231 et seq; MSA 5.3194(601) et seq?

This question has been addressed and answered in OAG, 1987-1988, No 6486, p 240 (January 7, 1988), which concluded that Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 29, does not require that the state reimburse a municipal fire department for sums expended as required by MCL 408.1014i; MSA 17.50(14i), to formulate a plan for executing the fire department's responsibilities with respect to each site within the fire department's jurisdiction where hazardous chemicals are used.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

(1) It should be noted that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601 et seq, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, PL No 99-499 (1986), also imposes requirements as to access to information on hazardous substances. However, it is not necessary to consider this act in order to answer your question.

 


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]